Whats the lowest MCAT score that medical schools would consider for minorities?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I never said that the current generation of white males are responsible!!!

I said that the share of the pie that we are now eating is as big and juicy as it is because it has been inflated beyond its rightful size by the bad conduct of the generations that came before us. We NOW are more advantaged than we deserve because we inherited more pie than we, and our ancestors, ever should have had. Our predecessors stole some pie that belonged to others.

So our generation may be stuck with the bill, not because we are "responsible," but the readjustment back to the rightful distribution of pie requires some of us to give some up.

It's math, dude.

Close your eyes really tightly and see if this can sink in.

Maybe I'm not closing them tight enough because I can't even recognize that as "math." And BTW, any time you're stuck with a "bill," responsibility to pay it is implied, so I'm not sure why you're shying away from that word.

But for the bolded: You're calling white people "overadvantaged," with no disregard to socioeconomic status and other personal hardships? Really? So now all of these over-advantaged whites have inherited some type of social blood-money that should currently belong to minorities, with no respect to their own socioeconomic statuses?

I can see reasons for non-meritocratic criteria to be used in admissions, even race. But the justification you laid out is the traditional/nonsensical belief of advantage based solely on race -- when there are so many other more important factors involved.
 
Wow, this thread has become more firey since this morning. While it is true that the group who holds the power (white males) is not directly responsible for past misdeeds, they are the direct beneficiaries of these acts. Keeping non-white males down has made it much easier for white males to access things like, oh, something useful, say education. Or a home loan. Maybe a business loan? And let's say great, great grandfather made some sweet ass investmests because he was able to buy said home or get such a loan...wouldn't that help?! Come on, just compare minority public schools to white schools. It's like you're in a different country! I know, I've taught at both.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Everytime I see this argument held up, my immediate question is this: which group, right now in 2010, is at their "appropriate" level of advantage? Blacks are disadvantaged. Hispanics are disadvantaged. Asians are somehow overadvantaged. Whites are overadvantaged, and are the sole cause of all the other disadvantages. Is anyone where they "should" be? And who is it who gets to decide that? For whites, what year of immigration by their ancestors gets them off the hook for "giv(ing) some up"? Same question for blacks. Are Caribbean and African blacks that immigrated here after 1964 due help? If so, why? Does everybody get a vote on that, or is it just the slave-descendants who get to decide if the late-immigrators get to take a bite out of their reparation pie?

This is going to raise flames but as an Asian person, it just makes my blood boil when someone says Asians in america are "overadvantaged"

Asians here are so underprivileged compared to African Americans and hispanics its not funny.

as i said before:

Asians in US are overrepresented in elite careers because only the elite of their own race actually has an opportunity to come to America.

And because of this Asians are discriminated against in med school apps while African Americans / Hispanics get special advantages. Does this sound fair to you?

an asian immigrant has to make it through all the challenges of getting an american citizenship/green card, then once here deal with the same kind of discrimination in everyday life/job as blacks and other URMS. and in addition when we apply to med school, URM's get advantages while we are disadvantaged even compared to whites, simply because there is a bigger # of us who are qualifed.


to illustrate how ridiculous this is , here's an example:

In an imaginery country, there lives the top 5% of the black population along with average white people.

"Hey look in this country those blacks are doing so much better than the whites, that must mean the whites are underprivileged and need affirmative action!"

if you think it's hard for a black person growing up in the ghettos to make it to med school.
Try being an asian person growing up from the same ghetto applying to med school against reverse AA.
 
Last edited:
I stopped reading after that comment. I learned everything I needed to know about whatever would have come out of your mouth next.
You're right - the current socioeconomic status of white americans owes nothing to their past 300 years of privileged position in society.
 
if you think it's hard for a black person growing up in the ghettos to make it to med school.
Try being an asian person growing up from the same ghetto applying to med school against reverse AA.

Yeah, that sucks, but it is also super rare! I grew up in the "ghetto." The only asian I ever saw was the owner of the liquor store. Like you said, asians in the U.S. are from the elite class...
 
You're right - the current socioeconomic status of white americans owes nothing to their past 300 years of privileged position in society.

No, you're right. My individual, current socioeconomic status as a white American is owed completely to a group of whites that I'm not descended from and who bestowed nothing on me except for a population of pissed off blacks who thought it an interesting experiment to try to even the scales out a bit with the few whites who attended the public schools. Of course, I am the repressor who owes the black community, since they are so easily defined and monolithic as a block, their due. These areguments are getting silly. I feel like I'm sitting in on the second week of an undergraduate history of the black diaspora class, which I'm sure for a few of the posters is relatively true.
 
No, you're right. My individual, current socioeconomic status as a white American is owed completely to a group of whites

Yay for words which no one used and complete change the meaning of arguments. Straw man much?

Of course, I am the repressor who owes the black community, since they are so easily defined and monolithic as a block, their due.

Yay for made up demands and your damn right heroic refusal to acquiesce to them. Way to make a stand guy. Random arguments are fun. Maybe you can work in 'death panels' in there somewhere to really drive home the point.

Reminds me of the quote from the movie Gandhi, "They walked, both Hindu and Muslim alike, with heads held high, without any hope of escape from injury or death. It went on and on into the night. Women carried the wounded and broken bodies from the road until they dropped from exhaustion. But still it went on and on. Whatever moral ascendency the West held was lost here today. India is free. For she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give, and she has neither cringed nor retreated."

We salute you, Mr. Takes-Heroic-Stands-On-Imaginary-Issues-Guy.
 
You keep bringing these strongly-worded replies to posts made asking question of specific things you've said, by me and others, but you say nothing in actual response. It's all heat and no light. I'm punching out of this one, as I thought you, specifically, would be up for the discussion. You're not, however. This post has become a waste of time, unfortunately. You accuse of "STAW MAN!!!" and then make a silly ad hominem. Nice movie quote though.

Yay for words which no one used and complete change the meaning of arguments. Straw man much?



Yay for made up demands and your damn right heroic refusal to acquiesce to them. Way to make a stand guy. Random arguments are fun. Maybe you can work in 'death panels' in there somewhere to really drive home the point.

Reminds me of the quote from the movie Gandhi, "They walked, both Hindu and Muslim alike, with heads held high, without any hope of escape from injury or death. It went on and on into the night. Women carried the wounded and broken bodies from the road until they dropped from exhaustion. But still it went on and on. Whatever moral ascendency the West held was lost here today. India is free. For she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give, and she has neither cringed nor retreated."

We salute you, Mr. Takes-Heroic-Stands-On-Imaginary-Issues-Guy.
 
I was going to post in this thread. Then I realized I was hungry and tired, and I would probably get more done by taking a nap than arguing here.
 
Tupac was wrong - we have a black president.

/thread

I'ts not a secret, don't conceal the facts...Did you know the penitentiaries of America are filled with blacks? Sadly, some things will never change my friend.
 
To suggest that the ruling class does not benefit by virtue of being the ruling is simply idiotic. I am done here.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh, I know of people who've gotten in with a score of 24 and have gone on to deal well on USMLEs. Good luck OP!
 
Last edited:
You keep bringing these strongly-worded replies to posts made asking question of specific things you've said, by me and others, but you say nothing in actual response
Discuss what? If you're saying there is no advantage in this society if you're straight vs. no, or male vs. female or white vs. not, I don't know what to tell you. There is nothing to discuss at that point because you clearly have never read any of the trillions of studies proving otherwise, or you choose to ignore them all.
 
Class-Based Reductionism on the Left
Perhaps the most common way in which folks on the left sometimes perpetuate racism is by a vulgar form of class reductionism, in which they advance the notion that racism is a secondary issue to the class system, and that what leftists and radicals should be doing is spending more time focusing on the fight for dramatic and transformative economic change (whether reformist or revolutionary), rather than engaging in what they derisively term "identity politics." The problem, say these voices, are corporations, the rich, the elite, etc., and to get sidetracked into a discussion of white supremacy is to ignore this fact and weaken the movement for radical change.

But in fact, racism affects the lives of people of color quite apart from the class system. Black and brown folks who are not poor or working class — indeed those who are upper middle class and affluent — are still subjected to discrimination regularly, whether in the housing market, on the part of police, in schools, in the health care delivery system and on the job. True enough, these better-off folks of color may be more economically stable that their poor white counterparts, but in the class system they compete for stuff against whites in the same economic strata: a competition in which they operate at a decided and unfair disadvantage. So too, poor and working class whites, though they suffer the indignities of the class system, still have decided advantages over poor and working class people of color: their spells of unemployment are typically far shorter, their ability to find affordable and decent housing is far greater, and they are less likely to find themselves in resource-poor schools than even blacks and Latinos in middle class families. In fact, lower income whites are more likely to own their own home than middle class blacks, and most poor whites in the U.S. do not live in poor neighborhoods — rather they are mostly to be found in middle class communities where opportunities are far greater — whereas most poor people of color are surrounded by concentrated poverty. And black folks with college degrees, professional occupational status and health insurance coverage actually have worse health outcomes than white dropouts, with low income and low-level if any medical care, thanks to racism in health care delivery and black experiences with racism, which have uniquely debilitating health affects at all income levels.

To ignore the unique deprivations of racism (as with sexism, heterosexism, ableism, etc) so as to forward a white-friendly class analysis is inherently marginalizing to the lived experience of black and brown folks in the United States. And what's more, to ignore racism is to actually weaken the struggle for class unity and economic transformation. Research on this matter is crystal clear: it is in large measure due to racism — and the desire of working class whites to maintain a sense of superiority over workers of color, as a "psychological wage" when real wages and benefits have proven inadequate — that has divided the working class. It is this holding onto the status conferred by whiteness, as a form of "alternate property" (to paraphrase UCLA Law Professor, Cheryl Harris), which has undermined the ability of white and of-color working people to engage in solidarity across racial lines. Unless we discuss the way in which racism and racial inequity weakens our bonds of attachment, we will never be able to forward a truly progressive, let alone radical politics.

In other words, unless all of our organizing becomes antiracist in terms of outreach, messaging, strategizing, and implementation, whatever work we're doing, around whatever important issue, will be for naught. Only by building coalitions that look inward at the way racism and white privilege may be operating within those formations, and that also look outward, at the way racism and privilege affect the issue around which we're organizing (be that schools, health care, jobs, tax equity, the environment, LGBT rights, reproductive freedom, militarism or anything else), can we hope to beat back the forces of reaction against which we find ourselves arrayed. The other side has proven itself ready and willing to use racism to divide us. In response, we must commit to using antiracism as a force to unite.

(1) The New Deal, far from being a comprehensive justice initiative (the mainstream white liberal interpretation) was a highly racially-restricted set of policies and programs. President Roosevelt agreed to restrict most all African Americans from Social Security, by capitulating to southern segregationist demands that domestic workers and agricultural laborers be exempted from the program. Likewise, underwriting criteria in the FHA loan program guaranteed that almost none of the housing being underwritten by preferential government loans would go to black homeowners.

(2) I witnessed this refusal to engage on Duke's NORPLANT bill personally. At the time, one of my activist jobs was as a campus co-coordinator in New Orleans, for a New York-based reproductive freedom coalition. More radical in orientation than the mainstream groups in the city and state (especially the NARAL-affiliated group), my colleague at the time, Anneliese Singh, and I tried to convince the older, whiter groups to join us in publicly condemning the sterilization initiative. Our entreaties were completely ignored, and indeed, Louisiana Choice took no stand on the matter, even though Duke sought to limit the "choice" of poor women (especially of color) to have children.

Think of the poor white people!
 
This post made me laugh. How to identify pseudo-intellectuals, A Field Guide:

1. They bring up, usually indirectly, George Bush, more recently Sarah Palin, as a primitive associative call. When used in jest, this call causes members of this species to laugh uncontrollably, smirk, and/or expel air from the nose signaling understanding and comraderie.

2. Quoting: In a classical naturalistic ruse, the pseudo-intellectual will attempt to camouflage a rather weak intellect by mimicking greater minds. However, this deception only works on organisms with IQs less than 100. The pseudo-intellectual will usually suffer a verbal or physical browbeating if he attempts this trickery.

3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

4. Makes up words: Chaining together with hyphens or coming up with a new word is classic pseudo-intellectualism. While other animals delight in writing, solving problems, and accomplishing tasks, the pseudo-intellectual is incapable of excelling in any of these. Sitting in his cave, tendrils of drool falling on his plaid shirt, he finds fulfillment in mashing together words in his head. Upon accomplishing this task, he proceeds to dance around frenetically or simply end an argument thinking he has accomplished the inconceivable.


You will usually find these beasts on college campuses across America or stalking internet forums. The nodes of greatest concentration seem to be at "Ivy Leagues." However, less intellectually capable variants can be found in "ethnic studies" departments. Born with the ability to see only Black and White, they are confused by multi-racial animals and react with great animosity when others inform them that other colors exist and money is the determining factor of social well-being.

Yay for words which no one used and complete change the meaning of arguments. Straw man much?



Yay for made up demands and your damn right heroic refusal to acquiesce to them. Way to make a stand guy. Random arguments are fun. Maybe you can work in 'death panels' in there somewhere to really drive home the point.

Reminds me of the quote from the movie Gandhi, "They walked, both Hindu and Muslim alike, with heads held high, without any hope of escape from injury or death. It went on and on into the night. Women carried the wounded and broken bodies from the road until they dropped from exhaustion. But still it went on and on. Whatever moral ascendency the West held was lost here today. India is free. For she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give, and she has neither cringed nor retreated."

We salute you, Mr. Takes-Heroic-Stands-On-Imaginary-Issues-Guy.
 
Last edited:
This post made me laugh. How to identify pseudo-intellectuals, A Field Guide:

1. They bring up, usually indirectly, George Bush, more recently Sarah Palin, as a primitive associative call. When used in jest, this call causes members of this species to laugh uncontrollably, smirk, and/or expel air from the nose signaling understanding and comraderie.

2. Quoting: In a classical naturalistic ruse, the pseudo-intellectual will attempt to camouflage a rather weak intellect by mimicking greater minds. However, this deception only works on organisms with IQs less than 100. The pseudo-intellectual will usually suffer a verbal or physical browbeating if he attempts this trickery.

3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

4. Makes up words: Chaining together with hyphens or coming up with a new word is classic pseudo-intellectualism. While other animals delight in writing, solving problems, and accomplishing tasks, the pseudo-intellectual is incapable of excelling in any of these. Sitting in his cave, tendrils of drool falling on his plaid shirt, he finds fulfillment in mashing together words in his head. Upon accomplishing this task, he proceeds to dance around frenetically or simply end an argument thinking he has accomplished the inconceivable.


You will usually find these beasts on college campuses across America or stalking internet forums. The nodes of greatest concentration seem to be at "Ivy Leagues." However, less intellectually capable variants can be found in "ethnic studies" departments. Born with the ability to see only Black and White, they are confused by multi-racial animals and react with great animosity when others inform them that other colors exist and money is the determining factor of social well-being.

tldr.jpg
 
This post made me laugh. How to identify pseudo-intellectuals, A Field Guide:

1. They bring up, usually indirectly, George Bush, more recently Sarah Palin, as a primitive associative call. When used in jest, this call causes members of this species to laugh uncontrollably, smirk, and/or expel air from the nose signaling understanding and comraderie.

2. Quoting: In a classical naturalistic ruse, the pseudo-intellectual will attempt to camouflage a rather weak intellect by mimicking greater minds. However, this deception only works on organisms with IQs less than 100. The pseudo-intellectual will usually suffer a verbal or physical browbeating if he attempts this trickery.

3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

4. Makes up words: Chaining together with hyphens or coming up with a new word is classic pseudo-intellectualism. While other animals delight in writing, solving problems, and accomplishing tasks, the pseudo-intellectual is incapable of excelling in any of these. Sitting in his cave, tendrils of drool falling on his plaid shirt, he finds fulfillment in mashing together words in his head. Upon accomplishing this task, he proceeds to dance around frenetically or simply end an argument thinking he has accomplished the inconceivable.


You will usually find these beasts on college campuses across America or stalking internet forums. The nodes of greatest concentration seem to be at "Ivy Leagues." However, less intellectually capable variants can be found in "ethnic studies" departments. Born with the ability to see only Black and White, they are confused by multi-racial animals and react with great animosity when others inform them that other colors exist and money is the determining factor of social well-being.

Why do you say his use of "straw man" was non-requisite? He wasn't arguing that all White people in this country owe all of their success to their history of privilege. Just a great deal of it. The use of "completely" by Pons was, actually, setting up a straw man.
 
Why do you say his use of "straw man" was non-requisite? He wasn't arguing that all White people in this country owe all of their success to their history of privilege. Just a great deal of it. The use of "completely" by Pons was, actually, setting up a straw man.

Purposefully, I might add. Just thought I was adding to the general hyperbolic trend of the thread.
 
The only way for Whites to compete with us and win is to have us in chains. Now, they can only hold us back by denying us employment. Fortunately, this is not easy to do in sports since our superior talent is out in the open and apparent to the whole world.
 
The only way for Whites to compete with us and win is to have us in chains. Now, they can only hold us back by denying us employment. Fortunately, this is not easy to do in sports since our superior talent is out in the open and apparent to the whole world.

No one needs you in chains to defeat you. You defeated yourself with this post.
 
Can you refer to the "white man" instead as WASP's? I think this will ease the tensions in this thread. Why because plenty of "white" people such as Jew's, Armenians, Slavs, Irish, etc. endured the brunt of discrimination and prejudice for a long time. Hell Jews are still discriminated against after 2000 years of abuse.
 
Nice! I had used the word psuedo-intellectual to describe many of the qualities listed below. Especially number 1. I would also add that they often mock others with religious beliefs, to the point of arguing for the sake of arguing.


This post made me laugh. How to identify pseudo-intellectuals, A Field Guide:

1. They bring up, usually indirectly, George Bush, more recently Sarah Palin, as a primitive associative call. When used in jest, this call causes members of this species to laugh uncontrollably, smirk, and/or expel air from the nose signaling understanding and comraderie.

2. Quoting: In a classical naturalistic ruse, the pseudo-intellectual will attempt to camouflage a rather weak intellect by mimicking greater minds. However, this deception only works on organisms with IQs less than 100. The pseudo-intellectual will usually suffer a verbal or physical browbeating if he attempts this trickery.

3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

4. Makes up words: Chaining together with hyphens or coming up with a new word is classic pseudo-intellectualism. While other animals delight in writing, solving problems, and accomplishing tasks, the pseudo-intellectual is incapable of excelling in any of these. Sitting in his cave, tendrils of drool falling on his plaid shirt, he finds fulfillment in mashing together words in his head. Upon accomplishing this task, he proceeds to dance around frenetically or simply end an argument thinking he has accomplished the inconceivable.


You will usually find these beasts on college campuses across America or stalking internet forums. The nodes of greatest concentration seem to be at "Ivy Leagues." However, less intellectually capable variants can be found in "ethnic studies" departments. Born with the ability to see only Black and White, they are confused by multi-racial animals and react with great animosity when others inform them that other colors exist and money is the determining factor of social well-being.
 
3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

LOL, look at the definition of straw man in the dictionary. Re-read the post I quoted. Look at the definition again. Apparently, the way to differentiate a faux-intellectual from a real intellectual is that the real intellectual does not recognize or ignores the straw man argument when it is encountered (note that I did not claim I was an intellectual).
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This post made me laugh. How to identify pseudo-intellectuals, A Field Guide:

1. They bring up, usually indirectly, George Bush, more recently Sarah Palin, as a primitive associative call. When used in jest, this call causes members of this species to laugh uncontrollably, smirk, and/or expel air from the nose signaling understanding and comraderie.

2. Quoting: In a classical naturalistic ruse, the pseudo-intellectual will attempt to camouflage a rather weak intellect by mimicking greater minds. However, this deception only works on organisms with IQs less than 100. The pseudo-intellectual will usually suffer a verbal or physical browbeating if he attempts this trickery.

3. Physically and mentally handicapped, the pseudo-intellectual will always bring up philosophical or rhetorical buzz-words in non-requisite situations. Examples: Straw man, occam's razor, ontology, syllogism, fallacy, determinism. These are usually used to give false credibility to arguments. Beware.

4. Makes up words: Chaining together with hyphens or coming up with a new word is classic pseudo-intellectualism. While other animals delight in writing, solving problems, and accomplishing tasks, the pseudo-intellectual is incapable of excelling in any of these. Sitting in his cave, tendrils of drool falling on his plaid shirt, he finds fulfillment in mashing together words in his head. Upon accomplishing this task, he proceeds to dance around frenetically or simply end an argument thinking he has accomplished the inconceivable.

I'm going to blow your mind again by refudiating you. See that? If we take your criteria, then it would not be a fallacy to say that either A) Sarah Palin is a pseudo-intellectual, or B) Both Sarah Palin and I are like Shakespeare. I would like to end by quoting one of the greatest minds in cinema history, "Sha boo ya, sha sha sha boo ya, roll call."
 
I'm going to blow your mind again by refudiating you. See that? If we take your criteria, then it would not be a fallacy to say that either A) Sarah Palin is a pseudo-intellectual, or B) Both Sarah Palin and I are like Shakespeare. I would like to end by quoting one of the greatest minds in cinema history, "Sha boo ya, sha sha sha boo ya, roll call."

Recipe for trolling success:

1. Create alternate trolling account
2. Pick narcissistic douchebag
3. Attack narcissist with direct, fun to read insults
--->guaranteed troll posts from target: 1
--->guaranteed troll posts from agreeing/disagreeing bystanders
4. Add in something subtly incorrect or controversial.
--->guaranteed troll posts from target: multiple short replies
--->guaranteed troll posts from bystanders
--->guaranteed troll post from other douchebag narcissists
5. Argue/Reply in realistic fashion
6. After arguing, say you were trolling
--->Troll bonanza

I win the internet multiple times over. Don't tell anyone my secretz.
 
Last edited: