The URM Advantage

[BHaus9]

Race is not used exclusively and it's profoundly ignorant and naiive to think so. It's an emotionally fabricated argument that is not supported by the current admissions process or aamc data and only serves to debase, debunk and disrespect the accomplishments of marginalized applicants.

You're absolutely right. The admissions process does not use race as its only criterion for admission (which I would never have disputed), nor is race the ONLY metric the AAMC and med schools use to determine disadvantaged status (which my post did assert). It's dangerous to use absolutes, and I eat my words.

But allow me to refine my stance: Race is given stronger emphasis in the admissions process than is economic status, and that's a tragedy.

I'm not trying to "debase," "debunk," or "disrespect" the "accomplishments of marginalized applicants." Not one bit. Obviously you need to possess the drive and intellectual capacity to succeed in medicine, and I think that most everyone who is admitted is qualified to be a physician from that standpoint. Instead, what I'm trying to say is that the present system masquerades as one that triumphs the marginalized, but is actually one that gives unfair weight to certain people that are NOT marginalized while neglecting many who ARE. I think the current system is better than nothing, absolutely (addressing some historical disadvantage is better than none), but I think it could be made much better, much more fair.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wolfie77]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -MLK

How about this one?

"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."

Please don't sanitize Dr. King or pick only the ideas that you like from him.

 

[kpcrew]

This topic has been beaten to death. I assure you there are countless threads about URM and AA hell I'm sure a new thread comes every week. We really don't need anymore. I'm sure trolls would love to argue day and night but this is an educational forum to help others not waste time over bickering.

feel free to not join in

 

[flaahless]

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -MLK

Umm... I think he was talking about not having police and armed citizens maiming, murdering, lynching and denying business to people of color for the heinous crime of.... wait for it... being colored.

 

[235788]

Umm... I think he was talking about the not having police and armed citizens maiming, murdering, lynching and denying business to people of color for the heinous crime of.... wait for it... being colored.

If anything that happens to poor hispanic more. They do outnumber the blacks (I think)

 

[BHaus9]

I think disagreement on this often depends on the fact that anti-affirmative action people aren't willing to accept that under-representation in the medical field is not a only class issue, but a RACE issue. To solve a race issue, medical schools have implemented a system that addresses it explicitly (as opposed to an indirect class-based approach). If a middle-class black or brown person benefits, this still accomplishes the goal of diminishing under-representation. I, myself, would MUCH RATHER see a poor minority student get admitted than one whose daddy and mommy are loaded. But poor kids often don't make it to the point where they can apply to med school so the next best thing might have to be middle-class minorities.

As for your other question, I think something that never gets brought up in these talks is how medical schools have social/ethical responsibilities to the communities they serve. I'm specifically referring to big urban schools (Pritzker, USC, Hopkins, Harvard, UCLA, Columbia, etc.). All these schools are located in and benefit from the communities of color which they serve. In my opinion, it should be a part of their socially responsible mission to produce physicians that reflect the patient population that their students perfect their skills on. I know this doesn't necessarily apply to University of Iowa or Nebraska or some place like that, but I still think it's important for medical schools to give back to the communities they get so much from. This is not only ethical but also pragmatic. For example, there was this study in Italy that showed that there is a difficulty between people of different skin colors in empathizing with each other's pain. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/race.empathy/index.html)

I agree with you 100%, and there is definitely value in having the workforce reflect the demographic composition of the patient population. I'm just wondering where we draw the line... Maybe short people empathize more with short people (perhaps not, but has there been a study?). Maybe blue-collar persons prefer to be treated by doctors from blue-collar backgrounds (maybe more likely, and more relevant to the conversation)? Political affiliation, religious heritage, sexual orientation, etc. all seem like valid demarcations as well. I think it's just the blatant check-a-box, presented-in-a-section-all-by-itself aspect of race, as treated by school applications, that really bothers me.

 

[ranson]

URMs have a huge advantage in medical school admissions, and people who try to spin it the other way around are delusional or just trolls.

Why do URMs have a higher acceptance rates with lesser MCAT/GPA than others? I acknowledge that URMs have it tougher in society whether it pertains to education or attaining jobs, but to say that they are at a disadvantage in the medical school admissions is crazy. An African American with a MCAT: 27-29 and GPA: 3.2-3.4 has an over 60% chance of getting accepted.

 

[wolfie77]

I agree with you 100%, and there is definitely value in having the workforce reflect the demographic composition of the patient population. I'm just wondering where we draw the line... Maybe short people empathize more with short people (perhaps not, but has there been a study?). Maybe blue-collar persons prefer to be treated by doctors from blue-collar backgrounds (maybe more likely, and more relevant to the conversation)? Political affiliation, religious heritage, sexual orientation, etc. all seem like valid demarcations as well. I think it's just the blatant check-a-box, presented-in-a-section-all-by-itself aspect of race, as treated by school applications, that really bothers me.

Are any of these other factors actually active in our society? DO blue-collar-background people actually prefer to treated by similar doctors? Does a Methodist care if a Catholic treats her diabetes? No. So it's not an issue. Race IS an issue.

Also, you didn't address the social responsibility aspect of my argument. Don't you think that schools that serve people of color should aim and work hard (not just in admissions but also in outreach) to have student bodies that look like the patients that are being used to train physicians?

 

[235788]

URMs have a huge advantage in medical school admissions, and people who try to spin it the other way around are delusional or just trolls.

Why do URMs have a higher acceptance rates with lesser MCAT/GPA than others? I acknowledge that URMs have it tougher in society whether it pertains to education or attaining jobs, but to say that they are at a disadvantage in the medical school admissions is crazy. An African American with a MCAT: 27-29 and GPA: 3.2-3.4 has an over 60% chance of getting accepted.

well there are "too many" asians in medicine. 4% of population, 22% of applicants.

Everyone thinks white people come from areas like

and will be fine if they take a year off.

 

[BHaus9]

Are any of these other factors actually active in our society? DO blue-collar-background people actually prefer to treated by similar doctors? Does a Methodist care if a Catholic treats her diabetes? No. So it's not an issue. Race IS an issue.

Eh... I wouldn't be so sure. It depends on the Methodist. Likewise, whether a person of ethnicity A prefers not to be treated by a person of ethnicity B depends on who that person is as an individual.

Also, you didn't address the social responsibility aspect of my argument. Don't you think that schools that serve people of color should aim and work hard (not just in admissions but also in outreach) to have student bodies that look like the patients that are being used to train physicians?

No, I wouldn't consider having doctors that "look like" their patients to be entailed by any notion of ethical responsibility. Otherwise we'd have child pediatricians and only female gynecologists.

I'd also go on to say that "social/ethical responsibility" entails a commitment to serve the UNDERPRIVILEGED, and not just the members of any one race. Many schools' mission statements reference the underserved, which can be defined in many ways.

 

[sibitrum]

How about this one?

"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."

Please don't sanitize Dr. King or pick only the ideas that you like from him.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to debate ideas, not the people behind them.

 

[Nymphicus]

Please elucidate what advantages in life being an underrepresented minority confers. I'm trying to figure it out.

Thanks!

 

[estradiol9]

I'm offended by this thread and I'm offended by affirmative action of URMs for the sake of being URM, because in my opinion, anyone can be "disadvantaged" - not just black or hispanic individuals. I don't care what statistics someone shows me about what race experiences what. I think the only thing that should matter is if you faced a hardship or were at some disadvantage growing up. Maybe it's just a bad taste left in my mouth after seeing hispanic and black students from upper middle class families bragging about how they have a better shot of getting accepted to medical school than I because they are URM and egyptians playing stupid and pretending to be 'african american'.

If someone grew up facing the challenges the OP states in their arguement (dad in jail, mom on drugs, poverty, poor school system, etc etc) and makes it a medical school interview with decent statistics and honest genuineness, then I do wholeheartedly agree that maybe they should be selected over someone else who didn't face those hardships but has better statistics. Why? It stirs the same emotions as this quote I read once:

The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of those depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen.

And while certain races may or may not be correlated with increased "hardships" such as those I mentioned above, the truth is that all races face them to a certain extent and I think it's unfair to make such judgements based on race alone when there are other mitigating factors.

 

[sugaranspice]

I don't understand why people are opposed to a fair, economics-based affirmative action system. It would help the disadvantaged black people, the disadvantaged asian people, and so on while not giving an advantage to middle class black people who had the same opportunities as middle class asian and white people. A higher percentage of black people are not well off, so they would still get the needed advantage from such a system. I don't think we should base our acceptance systems on race alone. Does it really matter whether you white people's ancestors enslaved black people's ancestors? Sure, racism still exists today, but asians have to face it too (maybe not to the same extent) and it doesn't seem that medical school admissions would discriminate against black people without affirmative action, so I don't see a need for a race-based system.

Riiight. . .one would very naively think so

 

[sibitrum]

Riiight. . .one would very naively think so

True, because they are currently discriminating against asians and whites, I could see them discriminating against other groups in the future.

 

[wolfie77]

Eh... I wouldn't be so sure. It depends on the Methodist. Likewise, whether a person of ethnicity A prefers not to be treated by a person of ethnicity B depends on who that person is as an individual.

Is your big problem with affirmative action that it doesn't treat people as individuals enough? Boo hoo. The rest of the medical school application already does that.

Also, there are some of us in this society that are used to being individuals, while simultaneously also being part of our respective ethnic/social groups. We are comfortable with this fact. Privilege lets members of majority groups go through life never having to think about or acknowledge themselves as anything other than individuals. Everyone else is already used to and okay with being a part of a group bigger than him/herself.

I don't know about you, but I prefer to debate ideas, not the people behind them.

I completely agree and within the quote that I used is the "idea" that affirmative action is "logical" and fair.

Also, if you're going to quote MLK, you're appealing to authority and should be prepared to defend the baggage that comes with that. I'm fed up with MLK being turned into Mickey Mouse and used by people who are the intellectual successors (conservatives) of those he opposed during his lifetime. You may or may not be one of them, but it's still very irritating for you to use the words of this man against a cause he supported.

 

[EnergyDrink]

URMs have a huge advantage in medical school admissions, and people who try to spin it the other way around are delusional or just trolls.

Why do URMs have a higher acceptance rates with lesser MCAT/GPA than others? I acknowledge that URMs have it tougher in society whether it pertains to education or attaining jobs, but to say that they are at a disadvantage in the medical school admissions is crazy. An African American with a MCAT: 27-29 and GPA: 3.2-3.4 has an over 60% chance of getting accepted.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TSzjera4edI/AAAAAAAAOzg/Z5dyJg8wI9A/s1600/medschool.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

The point is they have a DISADVANTAGE at life, and are therefor less likely to succeed based on factors outside of their control. Ultimately their struggle makes the medical community stronger, and they are judged outside of MCAT and GPA, just like every other applicant.

This is coming from a privileged white kid who would be competitive if I were a URM.

 

[sugaranspice]

Do we all realize that even if AA didn't exist, there would still be many qualified ORM applicants being rejected? I just find it strange how many think rejected ORM applicants = reverse discrimination due to AA. So if 10/100 spots in an entering class go to URMs, then the hundreds of rejected, but qualified ORM were discriminated against, each and every one of them, huh? It is also very pretentious to point to MCAT and GPA discrepancies between the groups and claim that members of a certain group are essentially "taking spots" from others. Who is to say that the spot wouldn't have gone to an ORM with lower stats than the rejected party? Self entitlement at its finest.

 

[wolfie77]

Do we all realize that even if AA didn't exist, there would still be many qualified ORM applicants being rejected? I just find it strange how many think rejected ORM applicants = reverse discrimination due to AA. So if 10/100 spots in an entering class go to URMs, then the hundreds of rejected, but qualified ORM were discriminated against, each and every one of them, huh? It is also very pretentious to point to MCAT and GPA discrepancies between the groups and claim that members of a certain group are essentially "taking spots" from others. Who is to say that the spot wouldn't have gone to an ORM with lower stats than the rejected party? Self entitlement at its finest.

Agree. It just doesn't fit in some people's heads that they aren't owed everything they want in life.

 

[qtipp]

I'm offended by this thread and I'm offended by affirmative action of URMs for the sake of being URM, because in my opinion, anyone can be "disadvantaged" - not just black or hispanic individuals. I don't care what statistics someone shows me about what race experiences what. I think the only thing that should matter is if you faced a hardship or were at some disadvantage growing up.

estradiol9, I think your ideas are very well articulated. I take exception with the part quoted above. What if the very statistics you care about show that one group is predisposed to hardship versus another group? Clearly there is abundant evidence for that. Also, a lot of your post was essentially you replacing one system of judgment with your own.

Consider to the following applicants.

Applicant A: White, Lower income student who happens to be in one of the best school systems in her state. Her working class parents struggle to make ends meet but she receives an excellent public school education. Consequently, she gets a 3.6/30S

Applicant B: Black, Middle income student who happens to live in one of the worst school districts in the state. Parents aren't really struggling but he gets a mediocre education compared to applicant B. Consequently, he gets a 3.2/27M

GPA and MCAT scores are measures of the educational performance which is also a function of that applicants school system. Who "deserves" to get in more? The person with the higher stats? The person with the lower income? The person with the worse educational foundation?

 

[qtipp]

Can someone explain to me why these two graphs look the way they do? Please keep in mind that this is APPLICANT data, not acceptance data.

Taken from AAMC.

I wish those decrying AA (which, admittedly, is not an ideal system) would try to fix this graph. The truth is that many people don't get upset about this graph because the underlying causes give them an advantage. The only data worth getting upset about are the ones that claim to show the "advantage" that URMs have.

Take a look at the graphs again and behold the advantage!

They are largely the result of our education system and income inequality.

 

[eHombre]

Also, if you're going to quote MLK, you're appealing to authority and should be prepared to defend the baggage that comes with that. I'm fed up with MLK being turned into Mickey Mouse and used by people who are the intellectual successors (conservatives) of those he opposed during his lifetime. You may or may not be one of them, but it's still very irritating for you to use the words of this man against a cause he supported.

Amen to that.

 

[Chrome19]

Do we all realize that even if AA didn't exist, there would still be many qualified ORM applicants being rejected? I just find it strange how many think rejected ORM applicants = reverse discrimination due to AA. So if 10/100 spots in an entering class go to URMs, then the hundreds of rejected, but qualified ORM were discriminated against, each and every one of them, huh? It is also very pretentious to point to MCAT and GPA discrepancies between the groups and claim that members of a certain group are essentially "taking spots" from others. Who is to say that the spot wouldn't have gone to an ORM with lower stats than the rejected party? Self entitlement at its finest.

I'm sure there are Caucasians and Asians with lower stats than myself that have been accepted to/offered interviews at places where I've been rejected.

 

[Plue00]

How about this one?

"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."

Please don't sanitize Dr. King or pick only the ideas that you like from him.

Umm, aren't you only picking the ideas you like from him too?

 

[eHombre]

Umm, aren't you only picking the ideas you like from him too?

False equivalence. A fair appraisal of Dr. King's work shows that the 30% quote was closer to his view on practical policy matters. He even went so far as to advocate a guaranteed annual income as a means of seeding a black middle class. The "content of their character" one-line quote (the only one that most people know) speaks to Dr. King's aspirations for racial reconciliation in the long run, along the lines of his second-most famous quote: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." (From a 1967 speech to the SCLC convention.)

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index...delivered_at_the_11th_annual_sclc_convention/

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -MLK

How about this one?

"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."

Please don't sanitize Dr. King or pick only the ideas that you like from him.

 

[kpcrew]

I'm sure there are Caucasians and Asians with lower stats than myself that have been accepted to/offered interviews at places where I've been rejected.

cool story

 

[Chrome19]

cool story

I've MET people like that who openly told me their stats. But one thing, med school admissions isn't all about stats, but believe what you may.

The point of my initial comment was that it isn't true all the minorities are taken the spots. If it were so, I would be getting interviewed everywhere. There are minorities like me who interviewed at some of the places I was rejected and with lower numbers, and some even applied late. So if you are not getting offers don't blame the poor minority fella like me for stealing your seat

 

[sibitrum]

Also, if you're going to quote MLK, you're appealing to authority and should be prepared to defend the baggage that comes with that. I'm fed up with MLK being turned into Mickey Mouse and used by people who are the intellectual successors (conservatives) of those he opposed during his lifetime. You may or may not be one of them, but it's still very irritating for you to use the words of this man against a cause he supported.

First off, citing one's sources should never be admonished. Second, who are you to say what he would support in the year 2012? Much has changed since his death. Regardless, I don't really care what he would or would not support; I just thought his quotation expressed my position on this issue elegantly. Furthermore, it highlights the inherent ironic tension behind affirmative action: those who claim to be fighting against racism are simultaneously perpetuating racist policies and stereotypes.

 

[Aeterni]

I didnt read the whole thread because it is already three pages long. But I will post the same two articles I post to every thread about AA, because they are extremely informative and work together well to address many points brought up in discussion on the matter.

http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affi...ifference-between-oppression-and-opportunity/

http://www.timwise.org/2011/09/getting-what-we-deserve-wealth-race-and-entitlement-in-america/


The reason for a racial focus of AA is the history of systemic, race based bias in the US. You may or may not buy that rationale, but it is not simply that "black" is being used as a proxy for "poor."

 

[sibitrum]

I didnt read the whole thread because it is already three pages wrong.

Lol, talk about close-minded. Without even reading what others have written, you know that the people on the other side of the debate are wrong.

 

[wolfie77]

First off, citing one's sources should never be admonished. Second, who are you to say what he would support in the year 2012? Much has changed since his death. Regardless, I don't really care what he would or would not support; I just thought his quotation expressed my position on this issue elegantly. Furthermore, it highlights the inherent ironic tension behind affirmative action: those who claim to be fighting against racism are simultaneously perpetuating racist policies and stereotypes.

I disagree very strongly with your position but respect your opinion up until the statement I have highlighted. I don't respect that part of your thinking because it is not grounded in reality. It is NOT a racist policy to favor underrepresented racial groups over whites. Racism in our world is a system whereby the people with the power and the money (via the legacies of slavery, colonialism, neo-liberalism, etc.) are white. It is not racist to undo this system. In fact, it is anti-racist. In some other universe, racism might exist in some other form but in ours, it exists as a system where whites are on top. Perhaps the words you were looking for were "discriminatory policies." That would be a more accurate description, although one I would still disagree with.

As for the stereotypes part of your post, I don't know what you're referring to.

 

[UTsksk]

Just let me use my URM (mexican american) status to get into my 1st choice med school this upcoming cycle and then we can get rid of this system.

 

[sibitrum]

As for the stereotypes part of your post, I don't know what you're referring to.

Stereotypes such as URMs being weak academically, only able to succeed with the help of the white man, etc. When this is the prevailing environment these are the kind of norms that are established for young minorities. Not only do they have less incentive to work hard, but expectations are lower. Therefore, they're setup to meet only minimal standards and never really bypass the elite, who ostensibly puts these programs in for minority benefit.

 

[wolfie77]

Stereotypes such as URMs being weak academically, only able to succeed with the help of the white man, etc. When this is the prevailing environment these are the kind of norms that are established for young minorities. Not only do they have less incentive to work hard, but expectations are lower. Therefore, they're setup to meet only minimal standards and never really bypass the elite, who ostensibly puts these programs in for minority benefit.

I see. I guess since I see affirmative action as primarily a way to undo systemic harms and not to help/harm individuals, this hadn't crossed my mind too much. Also, AA was put in place with a lot of activism and hard work from the African-American community, not so much the "white man." Overall, I totally see you're point here. However, as an URM myself I have never used this as an excuse to be lazy so I don't think it's likely for others to do so.

Just let me use my URM (mexican american) status to get into my 1st choice med school this upcoming cycle and then we can get rid of this system.

I really hope you're either kidding or a troll.

 

[UTsksk]

I see. I guess since I see affirmative action as primarily a way to undo systemic harms and not to help/harm individuals, this hadn't crossed my mind too much. Also, AA was put in place with a lot of activism and hard work from the African-American community, not so much the "white man." Overall, I totally see you're point here. However, as an URM myself I have never used this as an excuse to be lazy so I don't think it's likely for others to do so.



I really hope you're either kidding or a troll.

Yes, I'm kidding. In no way will I be resorting to my ethnicity to get me an acceptance. I plan to move back to the area I'm from (pretty disadvantaged, where medicaid is overly used) and try to provide a positive influence. I do have to agree with what one poster stated earlier. Minorities tend to prefer people of their own race. It's not necessarily racism, but they feel more of a connection due to their backgrounds. I've experienced it.

 

[UTsksk]

Stereotypes such as URMs being weak academically, only able to succeed with the help of the white man, etc. When this is the prevailing environment these are the kind of norms that are established for young minorities. Not only do they have less incentive to work hard, but expectations are lower. Therefore, they're setup to meet only minimal standards and never really bypass the elite, who ostensibly puts these programs in for minority benefit.

It's embarrassing when schools shoot for just passing state examinations(ex. TAKS) instead of shooting for exemplary status. My school had roughly like 70ish% pass basic reading and math examinations. SAD! My point is, the issue is the difference in funding for public school systems. Teachers go towards the money and resources (I'm just assuming this, no facts).

 

[HealthHare]

I think many people forget that the biggest beneficiaries of AA are not blacks and hispanics, but WHITE women. If you look at the rate at which the number of white female matriculants in US medical schools grew after the inception of AA policies you will see that it is much greater than that for blacks and hispanics. AA also includes white women who are historically underrepresented in the field of medicine. So no white females or white males with daughters or sisters should be complaining because trust me, you are benefiting way more.

 

[BHaus9]

Is your big problem with affirmative action that it doesn't treat people as individuals enough? Boo hoo. The rest of the medical school application already does that.

Since affirmative action's very purpose seems to be to take into account additional facets of an individual's identity/background, your own objection can be used against you. If we're trying to consider applicants holistically, why can't we take that further? What arbitrary line have I crossed? Would it be unfair to ask additional questions? Not worth the hassle?

Also, there are some of us in this society that are used to being individuals, while simultaneously also being part of our respective ethnic/social groups. We are comfortable with this fact. Privilege lets members of majority groups go through life never having to think about or acknowledge themselves as anything other than individuals. Everyone else is already used to and okay with being a part of a group bigger than him/herself.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of that, and I take great pride in my own culture and heritage. Not once have I said we should not acknowledge and celebrate cultural influences or group membership. What you've failed to address in even a single one of your posts is that human groups can be delineated in ways other than race, and for you (or adcoms) to place such emphasis on that and not on other factors is either a) arbitrary or b) outright dismissive of other marginalized persons. You don't think gays feel a sense of belonging to the LGBQT community fomented by hardship and lending a sense of collective purpose? Just tell me why that's not important. It may be LESS important than race. For the sake of argument I'll grant that. But "boo hoo" does not invalidate their suffering. I think the take-home point is that many people are members of some minority group or other, and in fact, even if we only consider race, many minority groups are actually ORMs that AA works against.

The second bolded comment is a generalization without any real basis, so I'm not going to address it further.

I'm not against AA. I'm in favor of adapting and extending it. I want that to be clear, and would appreciate your not painting my comments as declarations of insensitivity toward the travails of others. It's fine if you disagree with me, but if you very adamantly believe that your view is the only correct one, I present you with a challenge:

Please define the objective of affirmative action.

For my part, I can't think of a single reasonable definition that is compatible with the current system.

 

[sector9]

Yeah... totally.

Right bro... just as you pointed out later on with your graphs, Blacks are applying with much lower stats than other races. For example, 3782 Blacks applied with an MCAT score of equal to or below 20. There were only 10411 Black applicants total. That's 36.3% of Black applicants applying with less than a 21 on the MCAT.

Compare that to White applicants, where 4819 applied with under a 21 out of 78024 applicants, meaning only 6.2% of White applicants are applying with less than a 21.

I don't care what race you are, you can't be applying with under a 21 and expect much to happen.

The AAMC statistics can't tell you why Blacks are applying with lower MCAT scores than there counterparts. However, basing your argument on overall acceptance percentages is completely flawed.

The stats that I'm quoting are from the newer tables (2009-2011).

 

[TriagePreMed]

Right bro... just as you pointed out later on with your graphs, Blacks are applying with much lower stats than other races. For example, 3782 Blacks applied with an MCAT score of equal to or below 20. There were only 10411 Black applicants total. That's 36.3% of Black applicants applying with less than a 21 on the MCAT.

Compare that to White applicants, where 4819 applied with under a 21 out of 78024 applicants, meaning only 6.2% of White applicants are applying with less than a 21.

I don't care what race you are, you can't be applying with under a 21 and expect much to happen.

The AAMC statistics can't tell you why Blacks are applying with lower MCAT scores than there counterparts. However, basing your argument on overall acceptance percentages is completely flawed.

The stats that I'm quoting are from the newer tables (2009-2011).

But why are they getting a 21 or below in comparison to other races? The only available choices are (A) they are stupid (which anyone reasonable knows it's not) or (B) socioeconomic reasons. And if it's "B," then what can we do to make the situation better? Just because when they apply to med school they have lower numbers doesn't mean that their numbers weren't a product of a snowball effect.

 

[USCTrojan11]

FALSE. Black friend got into MS1 Yale last year. He even has a sweet afro.

I know who you're talking about. He has a sweet French name too

 

[sector9]

But why are they getting a 21 or below in comparison to other races? The only available choices are (A) they are stupid (which anyone reasonable knows it's not) or (B) socioeconomic reasons. And if it's "B," then what can we do to make the situation better? Just because when they apply to med school they have lower numbers doesn't mean that their numbers weren't a product of a snowball effect.

I never said anything about blacks scoring lower on the MCAT. All I said was that they apply with lower scores.

I'm sure there's been a study done on the issue so if someone has some actual data, then let's hear it.

 

[sibitrum]

But why are they getting a 21 or below in comparison to other races? The only available choices are (A) they are stupid (which anyone reasonable knows it's not) or (B) socioeconomic reasons. And if it's "B," then what can we do to make the situation better? Just because when they apply to med school they have lower numbers doesn't mean that their numbers weren't a product of a snowball effect.

No, those aren't the only available choices. It could also be, for example, that the most academically successful blacks go into other fields. If you think it's for SES, why not make that the determining factor, rather than race? Regardless, at a certain age, you are generally stuck with whatever academic ability you have, because your brain becomes much less plastic. Even if the reasons for a disparity are unfair, it doesn't mean we should necessarily try to make up for it after the deed has been done.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

No, those aren't the only available choices. It could also be, for example, that the most academically successful blacks go into other fields. If you think it's for SES, why not make that the determining factor, rather than race? Regardless, at a certain age, you are generally stuck with whatever academic ability you have, because your brain becomes much less plastic. Even if the reasons for a disparity are unfair, it doesn't mean we should necessarily try to make up for it after the deed has been done.

Off topic, but if you are interested....look for an article titled "Extension of cortical synaptic development distinguishes humans from chimpanzees and macaques." It suggests that humans are more intelligent than other primates because we have a longer period of synaptic plasticity.

Everyone may now continue with their argument.

 

[Chrome19]

No, those aren't the only available choices. It could also be, for example, that the most academically successful blacks go into other fields. If you think it's for SES, why not make that the determining factor, rather than race? Regardless, at a certain age, you are generally stuck with whatever academic ability you have, because your brain becomes much less plastic. Even if the reasons for a disparity are unfair, it doesn't mean we should necessarily try to make up for it after the deed has been done.

The evidence we have suggests this is false. Besides what age is this?

A study followed IQs and test scores of students over time and found positive and negative changes on both ends of the curve. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parent...y-Teens-IQ-may-fluctuate-over-time/50837840/1

The team report that changes in IQ did seem to occur, with some participants improving their scores by as much as 20 points over time, relative to people of similar age, while other kids saw declines in IQ levels.

 

[plumazul]

Right bro... just as you pointed out later on with your graphs, Blacks are applying with much lower stats than other races. For example, 3782 Blacks applied with an MCAT score of equal to or below 20. There were only 10411 Black applicants total. That's 36.3% of Black applicants applying with less than a 21 on the MCAT.

Compare that to White applicants, where 4819 applied with under a 21 out of 78024 applicants, meaning only 6.2% of White applicants are applying with less than a 21.

I don't care what race you are, you can't be applying with under a 21 and expect much to happen.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

The AAMC statistics can't tell you why Blacks are applying with lower MCAT scores than there counterparts.

That's easy. Because they are being encouraged to do so. (by mentors, pre-med advisers, etc.)

However, basing your argument on overall acceptance percentages is completely flawed.

Why? Wasn't the OP comparing acceptance rates with overall population demos? Are you suggesting that a Black child should not have the audacity to dream the same dreams as a White child?
Please explain.

 

[flatearth22]

Fortunately there's little to no AA for residency selection. So don't worry ORM's, we can still gun for plastics/derm/radonc without fearing a 220 Step 1/median grades URM taking our spot. A big reason URM's are selected in the first place is to pump out primary care physicians in underserved, minority areas where ORM's wouldn't dream of practicing medicine....so in the end AA is a necessary evil.

 

[BHaus9]

Fortunately there's little to no AA for residency selection. So don't worry ORM's, we can still gun for plastics/derm/radonc without fearing a 220 Step 1/median grades URM taking our spot. A big reason URM's are selected in the first place is to pump out primary care physicians in underserved, minority areas where ORM's wouldn't dream of practicing medicine....so in the end AA is a necessary evil.

That's an interesting point, and raises the question of whether AA is intended more as a service to those receiving care or to those who aspire to provide care. I think the answer must profoundly affect the way AA is implemented.

 

[TriagePreMed]

No, those aren't the only available choices. It could also be, for example, that the most academically successful blacks go into other fields. If you think it's for SES, why not make that the determining factor, rather than race? Regardless, at a certain age, you are generally stuck with whatever academic ability you have, because your brain becomes much less plastic. Even if the reasons for a disparity are unfair, it doesn't mean we should necessarily try to make up for it after the deed has been done.

Any evidence at all on this? Or are you just going to throw random variables?

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

The evidence we have suggests this is false. Besides what age is this?

A study followed IQs and test scores of students over time and found positive and negative changes on both ends of the curve. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parent...y-Teens-IQ-may-fluctuate-over-time/50837840/1

Brain synaptic plasticity does change, so the first poster was right about that. However, you are right too because it has more to do with learning.