ethnicity a factor in acceptance?

According to the MSAR:

"In new admissions policy authorized by the Board of Regents and approved by the U.T. System, UTMB has added race and ethnicity to the broad range of criteria considered for student admission and for scholarship awards..."

Great, now I have one more thing going against me in med school acceptance. Nothing makes me more upset than realizing I may not be accepted b/c of my race

does this apply to only UTMB or all UT system schools?

snowgirl said:

does this apply to only UTMB or all UT system schools?

Click to expand...

I'm thinking it's for UT system schools. The UT Southwestern page includes race/ethnicity as a factor now - see http://www8.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept21170/files/35646.html which includes a footnote on the new policy.

NCF145 said:

According to the MSAR:

"In new admissions policy authorized by the Board of Regents and approved by the U.T. System, UTMB has added race and ethnicity to the broad range of criteria considered for student admission and for scholarship awards..."

Great, now I have one more thing going against me in med school acceptance. Nothing makes me more upset than realizing I may not be accepted b/c of my race

Click to expand...

Your logic is faulty. The fact that one aspect you lack may be of benefit to someone else does not make it an obligatory disadvantage to you.

Ex. If one has a 35 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 42 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA (thus an advantage the former person lacks), it does not mean one has one additional thing going against. Someone else's advantage is not in itself a disadvantage to another person.

Originally quoted bysnowgirl
does this apply to only UTMB or all UT system schools?

Click to expand...

In the MSAR it is only under UTMB, but it seems like it is a state-wide policy now.

medhacker said:

Your logic is faulty. The fact that one aspect you lack may be of benefit to someone else does not make it an obligatory disadvantage to you.

Ex. If one has a 35 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 42 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA (thus an advantage the former person lacks), it does not mean one has one additional thing going against. Someone else's advantage is not in itself a disadvantage to another person.

Click to expand...

sure it does...because someone with a 35 MCAT could work harder and get a 42 MCAT...haven't heard of many people successfully working harder and changing their skin color though...

nev said:

I've heard that the medical schools in Texas are making ethnicity another factor in selection. So that makes it much tougher for certain groups.....
Is that true?
Thanks
Nev

Click to expand...

I think this happens across the nation. Isn't that why white folks make up more than 50% of the class. I think it is has been going on for a few decades. So it has been real tough for non-white groups to get in. Race was more of a factor before the 1980s when white folk specifically male white folk had an advantage, even gender was used as a selection factor, if you were white male you got in.

Originally posted by medhacker
Your logic is faulty. The fact that one aspect you lack may be of benefit to someone else does not make it an obligatory disadvantage to you.

Ex. If one has a 35 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 42 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA (thus an advantage the former person lacks), it does not mean one has one additional thing going against. Someone else's advantage is not in itself a disadvantage to another person.

Click to expand...

It is a disadvantage to me. Like your example, if someone has a 37 compared to a 32, the person with a 37 has an advantage and the person with a 32 is at a disadvantage. Anyways, it just makes me mad that ethnicity plays any role in the decision process.

jbrice1639 said:

sure it does...because someone with a 35 MCAT could work harder and get a 42 MCAT...haven't heard of many people successfully working harder and changing their skin color though...

Click to expand...

And if it were possible, how many white Americans do you think would change their skin color? Keep in mind now, once you "use" the 42 to get in, you can't go back to the 35.

I feel cheated by the race/ethnicity card (I am white), and I feel that those minorites who get in because of it should feel cheated too. How would you feel knowing the only reason you get chosen to go to medical school was because of the color of your skin? If it was down to me and a URM with identical stats, the URM would get in over me purely because of their URM status. I am not saying that a person who gets in because of the minority rule won't make a great doctor, I'm just saying that it must feel pretty bad to know your race was a determining factor in you getting into school over equalliy qualified (sometimes more so qualified) applicants.

NCF145 said:

It is a disadvantage to me. Like your example, if someone has a 37 compared to a 32, the person with a 37 has an advantage and the person with a 32 is at a disadvantage. Anyways, it just makes me mad that ethnicity plays any role in the decision process.

Click to expand...

I've actually been struggling with this question a little bit. I'm a firm believer in affirmative action for undergraduate admissions as our temporary solution because no one has had a smart, courageous plan to raise the bar of public schools to a level that gives everyone, no matter race or socioeconomic status, the opportunity to succeed. That will require real change in the school system from primary education onwards, and is a vast topic of its own.

I also feel that socioeconomic status has a stronger effect than race (though the names studies done on job applicants indicates that race does factor prominently) and that affirmative action to undergrad should have a socioeconomic component.

However, giving preferences in admissions to medical school on the basis of race gave me pause at first. If affirmative action at the undergraduate level was supposed to be the great (if flawed) equalizer, then what need is there for URM preferences at the medical admissions level?

The argument bothered me for a while. It made me feel that, as a privileged and overrepresented minority from an educated family, I was just engaging in race-based sour grapes. I admonished myself, but still wondered if I had a point...Here are the reasons that I did not.

1. Diversity is a value in and of itself. This is a relatively recent concept, but an important one. A lot of people say that it is important to have minority doctors in order to grapple with a diverse patient base, but I think it's more than that. All doctors should learn the skills of interacting with and understanding people from different backgrounds. Therefore, an increasingly diverse medical school population benefits not only patients, but also non-minority doctors, as well, by giving them further opportunities to learn about other backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. Someone around here once said that he/she hoped that a Brazilian-American applicant (I think that was it...) actually represented Brazilian culture and wasn't just doing this to get a break. I don't think that that's an entirely fair demand. People should represent themselves and inherently, because of that different background, they will have fresh and different perspectives to share.

2. Just because you made it to undergrad, it doesn't mean all undergraduate education is equal. Socioeconomically-underprivileged individuals and those from racial minorities who attend college are probably more likely (I don't have data, but I'm making a logical inference) to have to work during college than others. While financial aid does make up for this in a significant way, the system is still imperfect and these individuals often do have a disproportionate burden on them. I believe that when it comes to financing higher education, the middle class also tends to have a disproportionate burden, because for whatever reason, the imperfections of the system become most glaring at central financial brackets. That again, is a story for another day. In addition to financial challenges related to college, students from the aforementioned backgrounds (I'm not talking about the middle class here, but the other two) are probably more likely to experience other hardship unrelated to academics. Moreover, the challenges of integrating into communities where they are even more distinctly minorities than elsewhere poses unique challenges, particularly for Latino and African American students, but also for Native American, Hmong, and other underrepresented students.

3. At some level, institutionalized racism still exists. This is a simple one. Even amongst the educated, race still matters. What affirmative action does is to highlight and emphasize for those who rationally believe in racial equality and minority rights and opportunities (and for those who don't) the need to champion those causes. Even some of the most ardent supporters and activists for these causes probably have some measure of institutionalized racism. The trick is in recognizing that it is a flawed, unreasonable feeling and that other feelings, thoughts, and ideas should prevail. I think affirmative action helps to offset the negative effects of subtle racism and to make more prominent the ongoing issues of race with which we grapple today.

Of course, if we could actually solve the problem early on, instead of doing an inefficient uplift two decades after a person is born, we'd see better results. But for now, all we've got is affirmative action and we can't lose that, too.

edit: I wrote this geared towards people who accepted affirmative action in general, but had some qualms with it for medical school. For all those non-believers out there:

Imagine you're the coach of a baseball team. You've got two guys trying out. You make them do a timed run. They run equally fast, but one kid's got form and the other doesn't. Who do you take?

You take the kid without form. You can teach form. And when he's got form, he's going to outrun the kid who's already got form every time.

By living in neighborhoods with limited opportunities, few role models, and unfortunate dangers and exposure, underrepresented minorities are robbed of form--strong education, self worth, a safe and healthy environment to grow up, proper nutrition, and often, a value for education. If despite all these, the student scores the same as a privileged white applicant, then the underrepresented minority student has accomplished a lot more.

Therefore, the URM is better than the white applicant, plain and simple. It's not about picking based on race, from this angle, it's about picking talent--no offense.

And from another angle, it has become increasingly clear that putting together diverse classes adds to the learning experience of all students, so there is an added benefit. Now, for medical school, I must admit that the baseball analogy is diminished to some degree, but for the bolded reasons above, I give preferences based on URM status a thumbs up.

medhacker said:

Your logic is faulty. The fact that one aspect you lack may be of benefit to someone else does not make it an obligatory disadvantage to you.

Ex. If one has a 35 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 42 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA (thus an advantage the former person lacks), it does not mean one has one additional thing going against. Someone else's advantage is not in itself a disadvantage to another person.

Click to expand...

Med school admissions is a zero-sum game. Affirmative Action policies are also more or less zero-sum. Any advantage that you do not share with another person is then by definition a disadvantage on your part

Also, the statement made by UTMB is for all Texas schools in the UT System. The state has decided that race/ethnicity (especially Hispanic) should be a major factor...so much of a factor that those schools who do not increase admission of URMs (mainly Hispanic) will not receive as much funding. Thats why there are soooo many summer programs in the state of Texas. Yes, we have quite a few medical schools here also but most of the summer programs are to strengthen Hispanic applications and get them into medical school. I'm not saying this is totally negative because Hispanic (bilingual) doctors are needed for the illegal immigrants that have threatened to take over the state of Texas.

Originally posted by themadchemist
1. Diversity is a value in and of itself. This is a relatively recent concept, but an important one. A lot of people say that it is important to have minority doctors in order to grapple with a diverse patient base, but I think it's more than that. All doctors should learn the skills of interacting with and understanding people from different backgrounds. Therefore, an increasingly diverse medical school population benefits not only patients, but also non-minority doctors, as well, by giving them further opportunities to learn about other backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. Someone around here once said that he/she hoped that a Brazilian-American applicant (I think that was it...) actually represented Brazilian culture and wasn't just doing this to get a break. I don't think that that's an entirely fair demand. People should represent themselves and inherently, because of that different background, they will have fresh and different perspectives to share.

2. Just because you made it to undergrad, it doesn't mean all undergraduate education is equal. Socioeconomically-underprivileged individuals and those from racial minorities who attend college are probably more likely (I don't have data, but I'm making a logical inference) to have to work during college than others. While financial aid does make up for this in a significant way, the system is still imperfect and these individuals often do have a disproportionate burden on them. I believe that when it comes to financing higher education, the middle class also tends to have a disproportionate burden, because for whatever reason, the imperfections of the system become most glaring at central financial brackets. That again, is a story for another day. In addition to financial challenges related to college, students from the aforementioned backgrounds (I'm not talking about the middle class here, but the other two) are probably more likely to experience other hardship unrelated to academics. Moreover, the challenges of integrating into communities where they are even more distinctly minorities than elsewhere poses unique challenges, particularly for Latino and African American students, but also for Native American, Hmong, and other underrepresented students.

3. At some level, institutionalized racism still exists. This is a simple one. Even amongst the educated, race still matters. What affirmative action does is to highlight and emphasize for those who rationally believe in racial equality and minority rights and opportunities (and for those who don't) the need to champion those causes. Even some of the most ardent supporters and activists for these causes probably have some measure of institutionalized racism. The trick is in recognizing that it is a flawed, unreasonable feeling and that other feelings, thoughts, and ideas should prevail. I think affirmative action helps to offset the negative effects of subtle racism and to make more prominent the ongoing issues of race with which we grapple today.

Click to expand...

Very well put themadchemist

Look at the number of applicants and matriculants and tell me that you are not getting a spot because it is going to someone who is less deserving. And numbers (MCAT and gpa) are not the only thing that an adcom looks at. A racial or ethnic minority might have an edge because they understand a certain subculture and would be accepted by members of the group as a trustworthy physician.

2004

Black/African American 1,126 matriculants out of 2,903 applicants
Hispanics of any race 1,175 matriculants out of 2,545 applicants
White, non-Hispanic 10,343 matriculants out of 21,028 applicants
Asian (non-Hispanic) 3,094 matriculants out of 6,734 applicants

Even if no black or hispanic applicant were admitted (and some are very, very qualified), there would be thousands of white and Asian applicants who would not be admitted.

themadchemist said:

For all those non-believers out there:

Imagine you're the coach of a baseball team. You've got two guys trying out. You make them do a timed run. They run equally fast, but one kid's got form and the other doesn't. Who do you take?

You take the kid without form. You can teach form. And when he's got form, he's going to outrun the kid who's already got form every time.

Click to expand...

That is a great analogy.

themadchemist said:

Imagine you're the coach of a baseball team. You've got two guys trying out. You make them do a timed run. They run equally fast, but one kid's got form and the other doesn't. Who do you take?

You take the kid without form. You can teach form. And when he's got form, he's going to outrun the kid who's already got form every time.

Click to expand...

And if the kid with form happens to be a little faster? Which looks more attractive then? How much faster does he have to be? What guarantee is there that correct form will improve the speed of the other kid? How can you be certain that the kid with form can't further improve his form and speed as well? What proof do you have for the assertion of "every time" other than logical assumption? What if studies indicated something like "if you didn't learn form early, you never will?" Though that would be a tragic situation, there is the possibility that some things are not reversible.

It's definitely not a simple problem, neither in your analogy nor in real life affirmative action situations.

By living in neighborhoods with limited opportunities, few role models, and unfortunate dangers and exposure, underrepresented minorities are robbed of form--strong education, self worth, a safe and healthy environment to grow up, proper nutrition, and often, a value for education. If despite all these, the student scores the same as a privileged white applicant, then the underrepresented minority student has accomplished a lot more.

Click to expand...

I agree, but what you have just described is someone who has accomplished more because of his specific socioeconomic status and more specifically the details of his life, not someone who has accomplished more because of race or ethnicity.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasons for affirmative action. I studied them intensely in economics classes just as everyone else did. I also recognize the inherent value in diversity. And like you I realize that as of yet no one has put forth a seemingly better comprehensive solution.

But we are talking about medical schools in particular. The application process is one in which there is ample opportunity to determine the specific background, and thus opportunities or lack thereof, for a particular applicant. But by using race or ethnicity as a factor you discriminate against others with equally lacking opportunities that don't meet the prerequisite skin color.

I certainly don't have a better solution, but I have to wonder if some forms of affirmitive action aren't akin to applying an antiseptic that also happens (unknowingly) to be an anticoagulant. Perhaps we are treating the surface symptoms and allowing the underlying injury to be sustained without proper healing. Perhaps letting things get a little ugly looking on the surface allow for true healing underneath.

Who knows... it's just another analogy, but at least it shows the limitations in using seemingly "good" analogies to discuss extremely complex situations. I wish I had the answer. I do have the one that applies to me... personal responsibility: wherever the bar is set for me, and regardless of the reasons, take care of my business and make sure that I meet that standard.


Edit: I thought it would be worthwhile to point out a common dichotomy in our society's thinking:

By living in neighborhoods with limited opportunities, few role models, and unfortunate dangers and exposure, underrepresented minorities...

Click to expand...

You have stereotyped URM's as being exposed to danger and few role models, etc. When it comes to affirmitive action we are eager to apply stereotyping. When law enforcement uses the same concept in the form of racial profiling, we are up in arms. Interesting. Again I don't have the answers for anyone but myself.

LizzyM said:

Look at the number of applicants and matriculants and tell me that you are not getting a spot because it is going to someone who is less deserving. And numbers (MCAT and gpa) are not the only thing that an adcom looks at. A racial or ethnic minority might have an edge because they understand a certain subculture and would be accepted by members of the group as a trustworthy physician.

2004

Black/African American 1,126 matriculants out of 2,903 applicants
Hispanics of any race 1,175 matriculants out of 2,545 applicants
White, non-Hispanic 10,343 matriculants out of 21,028 applicants
Asian (non-Hispanic) 3,094 matriculants out of 6,734 applicants

Even if no black or hispanic applicant were admitted (and some are very, very qualified), there would be thousands of white and Asian applicants who would not be admitted.

Click to expand...

By the numbers, the acceptance rate is:

39% for African Americans
46% for Hispanics
49% for White, non-Hispanics
46% for Asian, non-Hispanics

It looks as though, all things considered, it is harder to get into med school if you are a minority candidate.

Iwy Em Hotep said:

By the numbers, the acceptance rate is:

39% for African Americans
46% for Hispanics
49% for White, non-Hispanics
46% for Asian, non-Hispanics

It looks as though, all things considered, it is harder to get into med school if you are a minority candidate.

Click to expand...

Of course, looking at just those numbers is certainly NOT considering all things. It shows absolutely nothing relative to average MCAT scores, GPA's, ages, undergraduate shools, undergraduate degrees, or any of the other dozen contributing factors to an overall application's strength.

If you were to find that the above factors (and more) were also statistically equivalent for all four of the listed categories, then you might could draw that conclusion.

NapeSpikes said:

That is a great analogy.

Click to expand...

If you liked this analogy, you can find it and others in Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

osli said:

And if the kid with form happens to be a little faster? Which looks more attractive then? How much faster does he have to be? What guarantee is there that correct form will improve the speed of the other kid? How can you be certain that the kid with form can't further improve his form and speed as well? What proof do you have for the assertion of "every time" other than logical assumption? What if studies indicated something like "if you didn't learn form early, you never will?" Though that would be a tragic situation, there is the possibility that some things are not reversible.

It's definitely not a simple problem, neither in your analogy nor in real life affirmative action situations.

Click to expand...

Ah, there's the rub. It is complicated! More importantly, it's subjective. Who knows where the line is drawn? It is certainly not a question of points or numbers...It's a gut feeling, right?

I don't know where the line gets drawn and I don't know at one point the speed of the kid with form outweighs the potential of the kid without. And I don't know whether things are reversible, but if we don't try, then we threaten to forsake a generation.

And while the kid with form stands to improve to, the kid without form never even got a chance to get form. Educational institutions aren't exactly like baseball teams, because educational institutions also have a moral imperative for social justice (in my opinion, at least). Therefore, there's some responsibility on the university's part to help those kids who never got form. This isn't the major leagues, it's little league. Everyone gets a chance, ideally, but there's still some measure of competition.

And I just feel more comfortable erring on the side of giving someone with fewer opportunities a greater chance to succeed.

osli said:

But we are talking about medical schools in particular. The application process is one in which there is ample opportunity to determine the specific background, and thus opportunities or lack thereof, for a particular applicant. But by using race or ethnicity as a factor you discriminate against others with equally lacking opportunities that don't meet the prerequisite skin color.

I certainly don't have a better solution, but I have to wonder if some forms of affirmitive action aren't akin to applying an antiseptic that also happens (unknowingly) to be an anticoagulant. Perhaps we are treating the surface symptoms and allowing the underlying injury to be sustained without proper healing. Perhaps letting things get a little ugly looking on the surface allow for true healing underneath.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point and one I hadn't thought of. The only problem with leaving it to medical schools to assess the background without having some sort of clear initiative to enhance diversity is what I brought up in point #3 in my first post: Institutionalized racism. I'm not pointing fingers, but it's something with which we all grapple and it's something that inherently shapes our systems. Therefore, without a concerted effort to combat it, it's possible that individualized assessments of background would leave people behind in a very racialized manner.

osli said:

Who knows... it's just another analogy, but at least it shows the limitations in using seemingly "good" analogies to discuss extremely complex situations. I wish I had the answer. I do have the one that applies to me... personal responsibility: wherever the bar is set for me, and regardless of the reasons, take care of my business and make sure that I meet that standard.

Click to expand...

As it were, in the couple of years I've used this example, you're the first person who has come up with a really good critique of it. And I appreciate it. Yes, analogies, like animal models for disease, have their limitations (and ironically, here I've gone into another analogy).

osli said:

You have stereotyped URM's as being exposed to danger and few role models, etc. When it comes to affirmitive action we are eager to apply stereotyping. When law enforcement uses the same concept in the form of racial profiling, we are up in arms. Interesting. Again I don't have the answers for anyone but myself.

Click to expand...

Again, a very interesting point. And in my statement, I should have probably qualified my statement with "often," because URMs are overrepresented in the bottom socioeconomic classes and in neighborhoods such as those that I describe.

And do I really have a good explanation for your what you say? No, not particularly, except to say that statistics and demographics are important, and I would rather use them in defense of the minority than to promote tyranny of the majority. It is a complex matter to differentiate racial profiling and the discussion of the struggles of minorities in the United States, but most practically, the former is more prone to oppression.

I think most of the schools have redefined their definition of URM/affirmative action because of the Univ. of Michigan court case not too long ago. I don't know the exact details but I believe prior most schools reduced affirmative action to basically a quota system in which applicants got a number of seats just based on race. The situation has since changed to focus more on intangible attributes like cultural background, diversity, life experiences, age and maturity etc. Thus schools are no longer focus entirely on MCAT & GPA. These are some of the things that make minority/URM applicants more competitive. Not that these things in and of themselves guarantee admission. Every applicant is still responsible for a compelling application. That you experienced hardship in your life or that you are a URM does not mean much if you cannot present a compelling argument why you should be a doctor. This is where your Personal Statement/ Secondary essays/Interview can be very valuable.

jbrice1639 said:

sure it does...because someone with a 35 MCAT could work harder and get a 42 MCAT...haven't heard of many people successfully working harder and changing their skin color though...

Click to expand...

The argument does not follow the previous premise, but just to follow your line, being lighter skin is quite an advantage actually. Statistically speaking you have a better chance being admitted if you have lighter skin.


Disclaimer: I do not have anything against any race, ethnic group, country of origin, political or religious belief or sexual orientation. I believe deeply in diversity.

NCF145 said:

It is a disadvantage to me. Like your example, if someone has a 37 compared to a 32, the person with a 37 has an advantage and the person with a 32 is at a disadvantage. Anyways, it just makes me mad that ethnicity plays any role in the decision process.

Click to expand...

My neighbor applicant's advantages are not disadvantages to me. Someone else's competitiveness resides in that person not in someone else. My advantages and disadvantages are mine inherently, my neihbors are hers/his.

medhacker said:

Your logic is faulty. The fact that one aspect you lack may be of benefit to someone else does not make it an obligatory disadvantage to you.

Ex. If one has a 35 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 42 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA (thus an advantage the former person lacks), it does not mean one has one additional thing going against. Someone else's advantage is not in itself a disadvantage to another person.

Click to expand...

But in that case you provided gpa and mcat are factors that in many cases can be determined by someones work ethic; whereas the idea of ethnicity is something over which he has no control. That is his disadvantage. One's advantage is another's disadvantage in big scheme of a competition...That's all this.

Now b/c I say this does not mean that I do not think that the UT system should not have implemented this.

Faust said:

I think this happens across the nation. Isn't that why white folks make up more than 50% of the class. I think it is has been going on for a few decades. So it has been real tough for non-white groups to get in. Race was more of a factor before the 1980s when white folk specifically male white folk had an advantage, even gender was used as a selection factor, if you were white male you got in.

Click to expand...

Now that is true....my father was one of four afr. american males in his class of over 120 at USC. There were only two afr amer females in that class.

When he went for his interviews at USC & Yale he was asked very race based questions that particularly tried to question why he as an african american wanted to become a doctor. It did not help too much that his father was a sharecropper (excuse me if I misspelled) and that in the summer time he (my father) and his siblings would have to pick cotton to make ends meet.

My dad always tells me that he could tell that many of the interviewers were still getting acclimated to the idea that medicine was becoming a more and more ethnically diverse field.

NCF145 said:

It is a disadvantage to me. Like your example, if someone has a 37 compared to a 32, the person with a 37 has an advantage and the person with a 32 is at a disadvantage. Anyways, it just makes me mad that ethnicity plays any role in the decision process.

Click to expand...

Of course you are mad b/c it is somewhat of a detriment to you. But if you were a URM, like me, I highly doubt that you would complain.

In the large scheme of things in society you will rarely find an instance where everyone considers something to be fair for EVERYONE....why?....b/c we are human....our existence is predicated on being better than (and in some cases being equal to) your competition....and in most cases by any means necessary.

LizzyM said:

Look at the number of applicants and matriculants and tell me that you are not getting a spot because it is going to someone who is less deserving. And numbers (MCAT and gpa) are not the only thing that an adcom looks at. A racial or ethnic minority might have an edge because they understand a certain subculture and would be accepted by members of the group as a trustworthy physician.

2004

Black/African American 1,126 matriculants out of 2,903 applicants
Hispanics of any race 1,175 matriculants out of 2,545 applicants
White, non-Hispanic 10,343 matriculants out of 21,028 applicants
Asian (non-Hispanic) 3,094 matriculants out of 6,734 applicants

Even if no black or hispanic applicant were admitted (and some are very, very qualified), there would be thousands of white and Asian applicants who would not be admitted.

Click to expand...

great post!!!!!! ;

riceman04 said:

But in that case you provided gpa and mcat are factors that in many cases can be determined by someones work ethic; whereas the idea of ethnicity is something over which he has no control. That is his disadvantage. One's advantage is another's disadvantage in big scheme of a competition...That's all this.

Now b/c I say this does not mean that I do not think that the UT system should not have implemented this.

Click to expand...

Hey riceman04 what up?

riceman, say I have to run a 100yrd race against


Obviously the guy has much more experience , skills, perhaps talent . Most people would agree that in my entire lifetime I will not ever come to equal terms with him when it comes to athletic ability. Nonetheless, if I must run against him, his athletic attributes (which I will assume we agree I will never even match) are not a disadvantage to me - they are no doubt an advantage to HIM but independent of him I have to do my own race with my own abilities and weaknesses (advantages and disadvantages). Whatever advantage he has on me is not a disadvantage I have gained. His advantages do not AUTOMATICALLY harm me. He just has an advantage I lack. His advantages do not preclude my ability to compete and give my best.


If adcoms set out to not accept applicants who are white, but instead prefer "colored" applicants, then the advantage of a brown, black students would indeed be a disvantage to non-"colored" applicants. Until then, what the Texas med school system is doing with minority students, considering ethnicity is not a disadvantage to white students.

medhacker said:

Hey riceman04 what up?

riceman, say I have to run a 100yrd race against

Obviously the guy has much more experience , skills, perhaps talent . Most people would agree that in my entire lifetime I will not ever come to equal terms with him when it comes to athletic ability. Nonetheless, if I must run against him, his athletic attributes (which I will assume we agree I will never even match) are not a disadvantage to me - they are no doubt an advantage to HIM but independent of him I have to do my own race with my own abilities and weaknesses (advantages and disadvantages). Whatever advantage he has on me is not a disadvantage I have gained. His advantages do not AUTOMATICALLY harm me. He just has an advantage I lack. His advantages do not preclude my ability to compete and give my best.


If adcoms set out to not accept applicants who are white, but instead prefer "colored" applicants, then the advantage of a brown, black students would indeed be a disvantage to non-"colored" applicants. Until then, what the Texas med school system is doing with minority students, considering ethnicity is not a disadvantage to white students.

Click to expand...

WTF AA has driven you mad

medhacker said:

Hey riceman04 what up?

riceman, say I have to run a 100yrd race against

Obviously the guy has much more experience , skills, perhaps talent . Most people would agree that in my entire lifetime I will not ever come to equal terms with him when it comes to athletic ability. Nonetheless, if I must run against him, his athletic attributes (which I will assume we agree I will never even match) are not a disadvantage to me - they are no doubt an advantage to HIM but independent of him I have to do my own race with my own abilities and weaknesses (advantages and disadvantages). Whatever advantage he has on me is not a disadvantage I have gained. His advantages do not AUTOMATICALLY harm me. He just has an advantage I lack. His advantages do not preclude my ability to compete and give my best.


If adcoms set out to not accept applicants who are white, but instead prefer "colored" applicants, then the advantage of a brown, black students would indeed be a disvantage to non-"colored" applicants. Until then, what the Texas med school system is doing with minority students, considering ethnicity is not a disadvantage to white students.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying...but I think you are also assuming that a quota in some form will be implemented along with this new rule (that will not help me much b/c I am not a Tx res....I am afr. amer....and my sister attended UTH....but anyway).

Competition is competition....More people are applying for TX med schools than the number of spots available. Since this rule has become an added benefit for minorities (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!), in the form of possibly incr. the number of seats that they (we...though I am not applying till June) occupy in a class. That means that there are fewer seats for all the other people here who are competing against them. So in a sense they are at a disadvantage in that their chance of getting into med school in Tx is decr (I do not think many people will notice a diff though).

Now about your Carl Lewis analogy....if he wins and you lose your disadvantage is that you are fundamentally not as good as he is, regardless of whether or not you gave your best effort.

cya!!!

riceman04 said:

I see what you are saying...but I think you are also assuming that a quota in some form will be implemented along with this new rule (that will not help me much b/c I am not a Tx res....I am afr. amer....and my sister attended UTH....but anyway).

Competition is competition....More people are applying for TX med schools than the number of spots available. Since this rule has become an added benefit for minorities (yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy!!!!), in the form of possibly incr. the number of seats that they (we...though I am not applying till June) occupy in a class. That means that there are fewer seats for all the other people here who are competing against them. So in a sense they are at a disadvantage in that their chance of getting into med school in Tx is decr (I do not think many people will notice a diff though).

Now about your Carl Lewis analogy....if he wins and you lose your disadvantage is that you are fundamentally not as good as he is, regardless of whether or not you gave your best effort.

cya!!!

Click to expand...

I can accept AA I just want my spot I think most people who hate AA are just looking out for themselves. What do they call that??? oh yeah!! human nature

themadchemist said:

And do I really have a good explanation for your what you say? No, not particularly, except to say that statistics and demographics are important, and I would rather use them in defense of the minority than to promote tyranny of the majority. It is a complex matter to differentiate racial profiling and the discussion of the struggles of minorities in the United States, but most practically, the former is more prone to oppression.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I think practically everyone recognizes that a problem exists. Unfortunately how we move forward from here is anything but clear. At least we are trying, and for better or worse that has to be worth something.

speedup said:

I can accept AA I just want my spot I think most people who hate AA are just looking out for themselves. What do they call that??? oh yeah!! human nature

Click to expand...

That's what I said....see one of my posts

riceman04 said:

That's what I said....see one of my posts

Click to expand...

okay I am happy for you Do you want a chocolate chip cookie or a sugar cookie???

medhacker said:

Hey riceman04 what up?

riceman, say I have to run a 100yrd race against

[Carl Lewis]

Obviously the guy has much more experience , skills, perhaps talent . Most people would agree that in my entire lifetime I will not ever come to equal terms with him when it comes to athletic ability. Nonetheless, if I must run against him, his athletic attributes (which I will assume we agree I will never even match) are not a disadvantage to me - they are no doubt an advantage to HIM but independent of him I have to do my own race with my own abilities and weaknesses (advantages and disadvantages). Whatever advantage he has on me is not a disadvantage I have gained. His advantages do not AUTOMATICALLY harm me. He just has an advantage I lack. His advantages do not preclude my ability to compete and give my best.

Click to expand...

I think you have missed over something very important pointed out in earlier in this thread. Application and acceptance to med school is similar to a zero sum game, in that there are a fixed number of positions available regardless of the number of or quality of the applicants. Every person admitted is another slot that is unavailable to you.

Now, if you were racing Carl Lewis and everyone running a mile in say under 6 minutes was given a prize, then his ability is not a disadvantage to you. But if you were running a head-to-head race with him and only one prize was given, then his advantage is absolutely your disadvantages.

Doing your best and making the "standard" XX MCAT score + XX GPA does not guarantee you a seat in med school. You are in direct competition with other applicants. This isn't like golf on a leisurely day where it is you against the course... it's like golf in a tournament where only the best performer gets the million bucks.

great exchange of ideas


I will end my participation with this last analogy:




While goliath was taller stronger, better versed in the sciences of war none of those advantages inherent to goliath, precluded David's own inherent advantages (e.i. his expertise in slings and stones).

If goliath would have somehow via his attributed precluded an advantage of David such as his sling using skills then david would have been at a disadvantage due to goliath's advantages. Yes goliath had more advantages in some areas, however, none of these advantages nullified any of David's.

medhacker said:

great exchange of ideas


I will end my participation with this last analogy:

While goliath was taller stronger, better versed in the sciences of war none of those advantages inherent to goliath, precluded David's own inherent advantages (e.i. his expertise in slings and stones).

If goliath would have somehow via his attributed precluded an advantage of David such as his sling using skills then david would have been at a disadvantage due to goliath's advantages. Yes goliath had more advantages in some areas, however, none of these advantages nullified any of David's.

Click to expand...

dumb argument !!! you erroneously assume that URM's are a homogenous monolithic group

These analogies are getting worse by the minute. We should've stopped with the baseball coach analogy.

nev said:

Yes sir....

Click to expand...

This is the first thread that I have seen that focuses on some aspect of aa in the med school app process....that has not turned ugly. That's cool!

lilTXcatMD said:

I feel cheated by the race/ethnicity card (I am white), and I feel that those minorites who get in because of it should feel cheated too. How would you feel knowing the only reason you get chosen to go to medical school was because of the color of your skin? If it was down to me and a URM with identical stats, the URM would get in over me purely because of their URM status. I am not saying that a person who gets in because of the minority rule won't make a great doctor, I'm just saying that it must feel pretty bad to know your race was a determining factor in you getting into school over equalliy qualified (sometimes more so qualified) applicants.

Click to expand...

If i got into medical school over someone with equally qualified stats just because my race was the determining factor I for one would not feel an ounce of regret nor shame. Just my .02 cents.

speedup said:

okay I am happy for you Do you want a chocolate chip cookie or a sugar cookie???

Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

speedup said:

okay I am happy for you Do you want a chocolate chip cookie or a sugar cookie???

Click to expand...

No I would rather have a fortune cookie! I'm tired of chocolate chip!

prettygirl1908 said:

If i got into medical school over someone with equally qualified stats just because my race was the determining factor I for one would not feel an ounce of regret nor shame. Just my .02 cents.

Click to expand...

Neither would I given the fact that so many of my relatives in the not so distant past weren't allowed to attend high school, much less medical school.

prettygirl1908 said:

If i got into medical school over someone with equally qualified stats just because my race was the determining factor I for one would not feel an ounce of regret nor shame. Just my .02 cents.

Click to expand...

can you please update your profile

riceman04 said:

No I would rather have a fortune cookie! I'm tired of chocolate chip!

Click to expand...

Fortune cookie ... I know you love rice(the food also)