Third time applying with GPA 3.7 MCAT 34 (LOW verbal) ................?

[oldstock]

"The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use"."

Prior to this case, the "compelling interest" required to justify affirmative action has been correcting the effects of historic discrimination. Put another way, affirmative action was intended to "benefit" black people or other groups facing historic discrimination.

By contrast, in the majority decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the compelling interest at hand lay in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

Two cases in 2003 involving the University of Michigan found that the university's policy of granting extra points to minorities for undergraduate admissions was unconstitutional (Gratz v. Bollinger) but that a program which gave holistic consideration for being a certain racial minority, though not an automatic boost, in admissions to the law school was constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger).

"The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."

read my post here,

I am glad that you admit that my way is the way to do thing (in the perfect world or whatever) lol

all kidding asides, you are right that not all discrimination is illegal. However, discrimination in education and employment by not letting ALL people to compete fairly and equally under the same rule and treatment) are ILLEGAL discrimination, esp when you are using double standard to favor some particular groups of your choosing to not let everyone to compete fairly and equally.

This applies to med school admission and Hooter's employment policy. I do not know about other Hooters but I am sure Hooters of America is an equal opportunity employer. Or at least they are claiming for

I hate to write long so I suggest you google for your info. Plenty of cases and info you can read about this issue.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

read my post here,

Legal professionals and the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation, so it's pretty safe to say that it's wrong.

 

[oldstock]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter as to the application of laws. They can deem laws unconstitutional, even if passed by Congress, and can throw them out entirely. They can determine that a law, as written, is being interpreted improperly. They hold ultimate sway over what is and is not within the bounds of the Constitution and what is and is just. Given that you're not a Supreme Court Justice, I'd say that their opinion counts a hell of a lot more than yours in regard to what is and is not legal.

I have remind you that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the Supreme law of the land which determines ALL laws not the Supreme Court.

Yes their opinions are counted more than me. And their opinions can be biased, influenced or changed throughout time and history. The Supreme Court however cannot rewrite the Constutions/Bill of Rights.

When enough people like me, things will change.

"Law adopted post case
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2, passed and precluded the use of race in the Law School admissions processes. In this respect, Proposal 2 is similar to California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200, other initiatives that also banned the use of race in public university admissions decisions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned MCRI on July 1, 2011. Judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said that "Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests." This decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals on November 16, 2012. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said he will appeal the court ruling to the Supreme Court.[2]

On March 25, 2013 the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. The Court ultimately upheld MCRI in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

 

[oldstock]

Legal professionals and the Supreme Court disagree with your interpretation, so it's pretty safe to say that it's wrong.

not necessarily true, esp you are talking about opinions. Court's or legal judgment/interpretation are just opinions. Those can be challenged by ordinary people like me and changed.

 

[oldstock]

Try applying to Hooters or an underwear model as a fat guy. You don't have what they're looking for, they aren't hiring you. Call it sex discrimination or fat discrimination or whatever the hell you want, but the simple fact is, you're not the one they want.

Considering that the Supreme Court determines the law of the land, here is what they have ruled is acceptable and not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger (Acceptable URM policy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger (Unacceptable URM policy)

They decide what is law, not you, so, yeah- URMs being afforded special treatment is perfectly acceptable and will likely remain so until society treats URMs fairly in general.

again, whatever rule of the game, apply to all and let all compete fairly and equally. Fat or not.

you must frequent Hooters a lot !! lol

 

[Mad Jack]

not necessarily true, esp you are talking about opinions. Court's or legal judgment/interpretation are just opinions. Those can be challenged by ordinary people like me and changed.

And that's fine. But that requires a new law, not to say that current practices are illegal. That's the rub. Anyway, we've derailed this thread far too much. This discussion is over before the thread gets locked.

 

[oldstock]

And that's fine. But that requires a new law, not to say that current practices are illegal. That's the rub. Anyway, we've derailed this thread far too much. This discussion is over before the thread gets locked.

the current URM practice is clearly ILLEGAL according to the US Constitution. It will be challenged in court soon enough !!

like I have said above, when there are enough people like me, things will change. It is already happening like in the very same link you gave me above,

"Law adopted post case
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2, passed and precluded the use of race in the Law School admissions processes. In this respect, Proposal 2 is similar to California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200, other initiatives that also banned the use of race in public university admissions decisions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned MCRI on July 1, 2011. Judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said that "Proposal 2 reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests." This decision was upheld by the full Court of Appeals on November 16, 2012. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said he will appeal the court ruling to the Supreme Court.[2]

On March 25, 2013 the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case. The Court ultimately upheld MCRI in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


you are right about this thread was derailed !! lol

If you or anyone open different thread to discuss this matter with me or via PMs, I am open to that.


Have a great evening !!

 

[nycmdwannabe]

Listen to yourself again. Award who ?? Penalize who ?? Racist ?? Ignorant ?? Prejeudge ?? System broken ?? Chosen to advocate racism ??

is it me you are talking about or you are talking about this very URM admission policy ?? lol


you obviously do not even read my posts. Thats ok but do not put words in my mouth.


You obviously do not read the news or the history book. Call me or my posts "ignorant" or un-American. "where were you born and raised??" PUH-lease !!


But you know, in real life, worldwide there is a universal word for taking without earning. Unfortunately, I do not think people like you know that word. Shame.


I will not argue or discuss further with you on this subject. Again, like people like you are more interested on bullying than discussing by dodging my questions and trying put words in my mouth every time... That is low.


I am done discussing this matter with you. Buddy lol

I'm sorry, but what you wrote makes little sense.

Feel free to continue to expound upon your extremist viewpoints, but please don't be surprised when others also tell you that you are racist (for all of the reasons set forth by me and others above). And you simply are wrong. Using race as an admissions factor is not illegal, has never been deemed per se illegal and will not become per se illegal. Your superficial understanding of the Constitution does not help. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the 14th Amendment (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) mandate what you claim they do.

I'm still dumbfounded as to how white men fail to see the institutional advantages they have simply as a result of their race and then melt down over perceived injustice to themselves or other white men when their race may in some manner be a minor disadvantage. Advocating that people avoid all URM doctors is racist--no way around that. You prejudge someone's merits based on her race. Nothing you can say about URM admissions changes that.

 

[oldstock]

I've come across some posts here. Read and make out whatever you can if you will

I'm not going to sit here and sugar coat anything for anyone. I also will not bash the OP.

But i will say this, I am URM, I am also a mother of 2 and a full time student. My gpa is not what I would like it to be and I have yet to take the MCAT.

IF medical schools have a particular requirement for admissions then I will not question that and I will make it my business to attain those requirements whether it be the MCAT, cgpa, sgpa, EC's, etc..

Sure EVERYONE gets a second chance..... They get a second chance at making up for their bad grades. That means, retaking courses below C+, doing post baccs or SMP's etc.

No one is asking OP to get straight A's on his first try. Just to have a bit more consideration for the "competition" and apply with some stats that can meet the requirements of the Medical schools.

If he gets in with subpar grades thats great for him but what about those that actually bust their a*s to get 3.9 gpa and 35 MCAT?

What do you say to a person who is a nontrad, financially provides for their family, did a post bacc, has excellent grades and MCAT score (and all that other stuff) and gets rejected to a school that OP got into? Are you going to argue that he isnt URM? Are you going to argue that the other candidate didnt go to a public school or that the OP's family is much bigger than his?

Poor grades are no excuse. There are millions of student help aids, lots of school organizations to help you succeed.

I get it, some people can't quit their jobs and that makes things alot harder but as i stated previously there are so many applicants who are doing the same things or much more and are able to bring their grade to the requirement level.

Adcoms have seen hundreds of thousands of applications and im sure that unless OP has some major/spectacular info on his app that he will probably not be considered for admissions.

With that being said, I do suggest that OP bring the GPA up to the required standards even for DO schools and retake the MCAT at least to bring it up to a 27.

Great answer

News flash, URMs are not the only people who go through hardships in life. As a URM from a very diverse place I understand this completely, as I know wealthy black kids and poor white kids. There are also plenty of URMs who deal with all of this adversity and difficulty and still manage decent or good grades with a respectable mcat score. I don't think there's ever much of an excuse for a 2.7 and a 19, maybe in rare circumstances. Maybe it would have been hard, but SOMETHING could have been done to raise one of those at least a little bit. lt's also possible that this person had a first degree where they failed a lot and came back with a strong upward trend. Bottom line is you can't understand everyone's circumstances regardless of race, the only difference is URMs get some leeway with it due to race, and white/Asian applicants going through hardships do not. That is the only flaw in the system, otherwise affirmative action is 100% necessary IMO.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/lowest-urm-gpa-u-know-matriculated.995891/

 

[oldstock]

some links...


Do Medical School Acceptance Rates Reflect Preferences for Preferred Minority Groups? -
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance

"
The chart above (click to enlarge) is an update of the chart from this CD post from about a year ago, showing medical school acceptance rates for Asians, whites, Hispanics and blacks based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for the years 2009-2011 (aggregated).

For 2011, the average GPA of students applying to medical schools was 3.53 and the average total MCAT score was 28, and the chart displays the acceptance rates for students applying to medical schools with average GPAs (3.40-3.59) and average MCAT scores (27-29) in the highlighted blue column, and the acceptance rates for those students with slightly higher and slightly lower than average GPAs and test scores in the other columns. In other words, the table displays acceptance rates by race and ethnicity for students applying to medical school with average academic credentials (or just slightly above or below average). Here are some observations:

1. For those students applying to medical school with average GPAs (3.40 to 3.59) and average MCAT scores (27-29), black applicants were almost three times more likely to be admitted than their Asian counterparts (85.9% vs. 30%), and 2.4 times more likely than their white counterparts (85.9% vs. 35.9%). Likewise, Hispanic students with average GPAs and average MCAT scores were about twice as likely to be accepted as white applicants (68.7% vs. 35.9%), and more than twice as likely as Asian applicants (68.7% vs. 30%).

2. For students applying to medical school with slightly below average GPAs of 3.20-3.39 and slightly below average MCAT scores of 24-26 (first column in the table), black applicants were more than 8 times as likely to be admitted as Asians (67.3% vs. 7.7%), and more than 5 times as likely as whites.

Bottom Line: In my previous post, I concluded that the medical school acceptance data suggest that medical schools must have admission policies that favor blacks and Hispanics over Asian and white students. Even if factors other than GPA and MCAT scores (which are probably the two most important ones) are considered for admission to medical school, wouldn't it still be very hard to conclude that admissions policies to medical schools are completely "race-neutral" and completely free of any racial preferences?
Here's why the issue is important: In some states like California and Michigan, racial preferences in college admissions are prohibited. For example, Proposal 2 in Michigan states:

"The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University (all three have medical schools), and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

The AAMC doesn't provide acceptance data by individual medical school, so we can't conclude that any of the three medical schools in Michigan are practicing racial favoritism in admissions, but it's clear that Michigan state law now expressly prohibits that practice. And based on national data, is there any conclusion other the obvious one - that U.S. medical schools must be considering race as one important factor in admissions, at least for preferred minority groups (blacks and Hispanics) over non-preferred minority groups (Asians) and whites?"

See more at: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/02...ceptance-rates-from.html#sthash.Ah6SZGBD.dpuf


------

1
THE CINDERELLA SYNDROME:
A CASE STUDY OF MEDICAL SCHOOL
ADMISSION DECISIONS
B
y
Tanisha N. Price-Johnson
___________________________________
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY STUDIES AND PRACTICE
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WITH A MAJOR IN HIGHER EDUCATION
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2013

https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/293619/1/azu_etd_12737_sip1_m.pdf




------

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/howard-and-meharry-usmle-pass-rates.363880/

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/usmle-step-1-pass-rate-what.728841/


--------

http://www.discriminations.us/2009/08/are-asians-victims-of-“structural-inequality”-or-just-plain-discrimination/

 

[oldstock]

Fisher v. University of Texas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Back to the lower courts
In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled the Fifth Circuit had failed to apply strict scrutiny to the university's race-conscious admissions policy and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit court. In November, the Fifth Circuit court heard oral arguments from both sides. In their questions during the arguments, Judges Patrick Higginbotham, Carolyn King and Emilio Garza focused on the way the university defines "critical mass" as well as past attempts the university has made to increase minority enrollment.[27]

Result
On the 15th of July, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit announced its divided decision in the case of Fisher vs. the University of Texas at Austin, which had been remanded to the Fifth Circuit by the Supreme Court in the previous summer. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit found in favor of UT Austin. In its decision, the majority wrote, “It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity.” [28]The court continued, “This interest is compelled by the reality that university education is more the shaping of lives than the filling of heads with facts — the classic assertion of the humanities.” As of July 22, 2014, Fisher and associated parties planned to file an appeal, either for an en banc hearing with the Fifth Circuit, or to return to the Supreme Court to argue their case.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas



------

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/why_everyone_is_wrong_about_fi.php?page=all

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/09/supreme-court-affirmative-action/1623487/

 

[QofQuimica]

I think it's fair to say this thread is totally derailed and serves no further useful purpose. Closing.