URM acceptance rates - confused

Sanctuary said:

So, I'm hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on these mildly confusing acceptance statistics provided by AAMC for the 2006 entering class. Based on all the conversation I see here on SDN, I guess I ignorantly accepted the implied notion that URMs, as a collective, have an "easier" chance of gaining acceptance to one or more US allopathic medical schools. Oddly, these data below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm hoping someone with more experience (and less opinion) on the matter could reply.

RACE/ETHNICITY - ACCEPTANCE RATE
-------------------------------------
asian - 45%
black - 38%
hispanic - 44%
native american - 37%
white - 47%

overall - 45%

---------

Based on these data, it would seem that your chances of gaining admission would be increased (by as much as 9%) if you are white.

Click to expand...

It's tough to compare data across populations without knowing the degree of homogeneity in and across the groups. The numbers you cite tell you nothing. But this kind of post is likely to lead to a flame war as I can almost guess what some of the subsequent incendiary posts might involve. Hopefully not.

Sanctuary said:

So, I'm hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on these mildly confusing acceptance statistics provided by AAMC for the 2006 entering class. Based on all the conversation I see here on SDN, I guess I ignorantly accepted the implied notion that URMs, as a collective, have an "easier" chance of gaining acceptance to one or more US allopathic medical schools. Oddly, these data below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm hoping someone with more experience (and less opinion) on the matter could reply.

RACE/ETHNICITY - ACCEPTANCE RATE
-------------------------------------
asian - 45%
black - 38%
hispanic - 44%
native american - 37%
white - 47%

overall - 45%

---------

Based on these data, it would seem that your chances of gaining admission would be increased (by as much as 9%) if you are white.

Click to expand...

I think it's normally based on these numbers: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgparaceeth.htm

But that's a really good point

Because when people say "easier", they mean can get in with lower stats. Then they argue that the person with lower stats is taking a seat from someone else which leads to this endless debate.

Sometimes you have to let people run their mouths here on SDN. The link you posted is no surprise. Most people will post stuff about the info they heard from their non inclined uncle or father.

As in any group of applicants, the top students are the ones that get any sort of advantage. Top URM's will have their pick of medical schools. Most will be lucky to get in anywhere.

infiniti said:

Top URM's will have their pick of medical schools. Most will be lucky to get in anywhere.

Click to expand...

True dat. The acceptance rates are about the same across all ethnic backgrounds, but the overall stat averages are lower for URMs. The URMs that I know (about half are off of SDN), have above averages scores (much higher GPA than 3.5, and higher than 30 mcat)...I personally have yet to meet a URM that didn't have good scores, but obviously based on the AAMC data there are a many students out there.

We have to find a multi-angled approach to increase the number/stats of URM students so that they/we gain equal average stats as any other background. It hard at the professional level, especially when the UC (University of California) schools are seeing their minority student populations drop for the past few years. Doesn't help that most of California's primary/highschools education sucks compared to other states.

Sanctuary said:

So, I'm hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on these mildly confusing acceptance statistics provided by AAMC for the 2006 entering class. Based on all the conversation I see here on SDN, I guess I ignorantly accepted the implied notion that URMs, as a collective, have an "easier" chance of gaining acceptance to one or more US allopathic medical schools. Oddly, these data below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm hoping someone with more experience (and less opinion) on the matter could reply.

RACE/ETHNICITY - ACCEPTANCE RATE
-------------------------------------
asian - 45%
black - 38%
hispanic - 44%
native american - 37%
white - 47%

overall - 45%

---------

Based on these data, it would seem that your chances of gaining admission would be increased (by as much as 9%) if you are white.

Click to expand...

ok this time I am going to try my best to only be a spectator....since we are now in spring I guess I can pull out my lawn chair and get the grill started. I'll ask my uncle to ship up some hand-made links from Texas and I'll do up the babybacks.

Who's got the chicken and the beer and the Kool-Aid?

riceman04 said:

ok this time I am going to try my best to only be a spectator....since we are now in spring I guess I can pull out my lawn chair and get the grill started. I'll ask my uncle to ship up some hand-made links from Texas and I'll do up the babybacks.

Who's got the chicken and the beer and the Kool-Aid?

Click to expand...

I can always provide the beer.

I'll try to answer the question: The assumption most people have when they talk about it being easier is that when one is comparing students such as Mr. URM has a 3.7 and 36 and so does Mr. WASP, they also did the same ECs and wrote the same essays and interviewed the same... Mr. URM, by this logic, will be admitted more places than Mr. WASP.

LOL - Mr.URM and Mr.WASP. I think they should play golf with Mr.Legacy, and Mrs.Donor.

It would have been so awesome if SDN (and the internets) had existed back in the 1950s. Then we could scour the archives for the weekly (if not daily) threads that would have been started by angry white males talking about the "double standard" of affirmative action, and how it was letting so many "underqualified applicants" take "their" spots.

Except back then, the AWMs would have been talking about...err...women.

Although I have been involved in several previous affirm. action arguments on SDN, I am convinced that this thread can maintain it's relatively peaceful discussion that it's had so far. So, to answer the OP's question, I will agree with Law2Doc and say that those percentages posted are useless without more data. Those percentages would only be meaningful if all of the other variables (MCAT, GPA, etc.) were equal. For instance, if the Native American group had an average MCAT score of 25 (these numbers are made up) and the White group an average of 30, then the difference would be accounted for by MCAT score, not race. Consequently, the aamc.org link is useful because it compares relevant data (MCAT and GPA) across groups.

Sanctuary said:

So, I'm hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on these mildly confusing acceptance statistics provided by AAMC for the 2006 entering class. Based on all the conversation I see here on SDN, I guess I ignorantly accepted the implied notion that URMs, as a collective, have an "easier" chance of gaining acceptance to one or more US allopathic medical schools. Oddly, these data below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm hoping someone with more experience (and less opinion) on the matter could reply.

RACE/ETHNICITY - ACCEPTANCE RATE
-------------------------------------
asian - 45%
black - 38%
hispanic - 44%
native american - 37%
white - 47%

overall - 45%

---------

Based on these data, it would seem that your chances of gaining admission would be increased (by as much as 9%) if you are white.

Click to expand...

What's the point of this?

NotAnMD said:

What's the point of this?

Click to expand...

The point is this: AAMC numbers

For example (averaging out here) 9 black dudes per state matriculated to med school in 2005. Or put another way, 5 percent of males matriculating class of 2005 were black males.

This is why a little part of me laughs everytime someone complains about a URM "taking their spot."

Sanctuary said:

Hmm.. well I guess the real question would first be to determine what the point of SDN is. Then, after determining said point was a 'discussion' messaging board, I would conclude that the "point" of this post was to 'discuss' something?

If you are still confused, PM me and I can explain it further.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Right . . . well look, no rational person thinks that URM's should be individually looked down upon in the context of a medical school class. And if I were a URM, I would feel just as defensive and upset about that kind of destructive thinking . . .

That said, the issue is that URM's ARE being accepted at a comparable rate to non URM's with number's that are considerably lower. They are awarded preferential treatment based on their ethnic backgrounds alone. And that is always going to rub people the wrong way. So my question about the point of this posting stands. It does not at all refute the inequalities of a policy based entirely on race.

And if you are confused, (no sarcasm intended) you can fell free to PM me. Thanks.

NotAnMD said:

Right . . . well look, no rational person thinks that URM's should be individually looked down upon in the context of a medical school class. And if I were a URM, I would feel just as defensive and upset about that kind of destructive thinking . . .

That said, the issue is that URM's ARE being accepted at a comparable rate to non URM's with number's that are considerably lower. They are awarded preferential treatment based on their ethnic backgrounds alone. And that is always going to rub people the wrong way. So my question about the point of this posting stands. It does not at all refute the inequalities of a policy based entirely on race.

And if you are confused, (no sarcasm intended) you can fell free to PM me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

NotAnMD said:

Right . . . well look, no rational person thinks that URM's should be individually looked down upon in the context of a medical school class. And if I were a URM, I would feel just as defensive and upset about that kind of destructive thinking . . .
That said, the issue is that URM's ARE being accepted at a comparable rate to non URM's with number's that are considerably lower. They are awarded preferential treatment based on their ethnic backgrounds alone. And that is always going to rub people the wrong way. So my question about the point of this posting stands. It does not at all refute the inequalities of a policy based entirely on race.

Click to expand...

Please note, I mean this in a non-snide, non-flame, constructive way...

The bottom line is that each of us puts together the best application we possibly can when we apply. We try to do well on the MCAT, get the highest grades we can, list our most relevant experiences, and write the most compelling statement we can. Some schools will discriminate against the exact same information that other schools will prefer. This happens with every facet of the application, not just ethnicity. Example:

"She has a 4.0 GPA. She must be an anal, anti-social, academic type."
"She has a 4.0 GPA. She must be a hard-working, intelligent type."

"She's married. That indicates maturity and stability."
"She's married. That indicates medical school won't be her top priority."

"She grew up poor. She's learned the value of hard work to overcome challenges."
"She grew up poor. She's probably just pursuing a medical career for the money."

My point is that admissions committees have to look at the total package to get a real sense of an applicant. It's ridiculous to assume a committee would be foolish enough to take one piece of information in a vacuum and base their admissions decision on it. It's not all about numbers. It's not all about ethnicity. It's not something to be upset or defensive about. It's just all the more reason for each of us to put together the best well-rounded application we can.

Sanctuary said:

So, I'm hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on these mildly confusing acceptance statistics provided by AAMC for the 2006 entering class. Based on all the conversation I see here on SDN, I guess I ignorantly accepted the implied notion that URMs, as a collective, have an "easier" chance of gaining acceptance to one or more US allopathic medical schools. Oddly, these data below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm hoping someone with more experience (and less opinion) on the matter could reply.
...
Based on these data, it would seem that your chances of gaining admission would be increased (by as much as 9%) if you are white.

Click to expand...

To the OP, from the perspective of someone who has worked in this area:

If someone comes from a background that makes it more difficult for them to get into college, more difficult for them to make it through college, more difficult for them to get clinical experience and research experience, more difficult for them to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT, and more difficult for them to put together an effective application, it makes it more difficult for that person to get into medical school.

This type of background is seen more often in non-white applicants. This correlation contributes strongly to that 9% difference. I'm not saying that all minorities have this type of background, nor am I saying that no white applicants have this type of background. There's just a higher incidence of it among URM populations.

Hope2010 said:

To the OP, from the perspective of someone who has worked in this area:
If someone comes from a background that makes it more difficult for them to get into college, more difficult for them to make it through college, more difficult for them to get clinical experience and research experience, more difficult for them to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT, and more difficult for them to put together an effective application, it makes it more difficult for that person to get into medical school.
This type of background has a high correlation with the background of non-white applicants. This correlation contributes strongly to that 9% difference.
I'm not saying that all minorities have this type of background, nor am I saying that not saying that no white applicants have this type of background. There's just a higher incidence of it among URM populations]

Click to expand...

I agree with this. But what I don't understand is that if we have know about the ethnic disparities in medicine for so long, why hasn't more been done (by the medical community, med schools themselves, states that have high populations of underserved, etc) to support these students along through high school, college, etc so that when it comes time to apply, a competitive application will look the same across the ethnicities.

star22 said:

I agree with this. But what I don't understand is that if we have know about the ethnic disparities in medicine for so long, why hasn't more been done (by the medical community, med schools themselves, states that have high populations of underserved, etc) to support these students along through high school, college, etc so that when it comes time to apply, a competitive application will look the same across the ethnicities.

Click to expand...

I would love to ask the current and past administrations (excluding Clinton) the very same question

Hope2010 said:

To the OP, from the perspective of someone who has worked in this area:

If someone comes from a background that makes it more difficult for them to get into college, more difficult for them to make it through college, more difficult for them to get clinical experience and research experience, more difficult for them to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT, and more difficult for them to put together an effective application, it makes it more difficult for that person to get into medical school.

This type of background is seen more often in non-white applicants. This correlation contributes strongly to that 9% difference. I'm not saying that all minorities have this type of background, nor am I saying that no white applicants have this type of background. There's just a higher incidence of it among URM populations.

Click to expand...

Although the system is not completely fair, there exists an abundance of programs and measures that are designed to resolve the imbalance. Just a few of these include scholarships targeting URMs, public outreach programs, and affirmative action at the level of undergraduate education.

I think an important question to ask is at what point can we say that the playing field is more or less level? I think a lot of people have problems with the perceived notion that URMs are consistently receiving concessions for their ethnicity.

The last time I checked, ethnicity wasn't a disability. There has to be a point beyond which society as a whole cannot continue to be held accountable for inequalities. Like the patients we will all encounter in the near future, their health depends upon our contributions as well as their own responsibility to self.

Progress is a two-way street.

autoimmunity said:

I think an important question to ask is at what point can we say that the playing field is more or less level?

The last time I checked, ethnicity wasn't a disability.

Click to expand...

I think we can say the playing field are more or less level when there is more than 5% of black males entering medical school each year. When medical school acceptees are more comparable to society's make-up, the arguments might stop.

Ethnicity is not a disability, the social circumstances surrounding certain ethnic groups can be seen as disabling.

LaDoctorFutura said:

I think we can say the playing field is more or less level when there is more than 5% of black males entering medical school each year. When medical school acceptees are more comparable to society's make-up, the arguments might stop.

Click to expand...

Yup. Back in the "good ol' days", when med schools were 95% male, and 5% male, I imagine there were males who'd attack that version of AA with eloquent arguments such as:

"The last time I checked, gender wasn't a disability." (Har har).

All i know is if i bust my ass and do good on MCAT...I got nothing to worry about...

autoimmunity said:

Although the system is not completely fair, there exists an abundance of programs and measures that are designed to resolve the imbalance. Just a few of these include scholarships targeting URMs, public outreach programs, and affirmative action at the level of undergraduate education.

I think an important question to ask is at what point can we say that the playing field is more or less level? I think a lot of people have problems with the perceived notion that URMs are consistently receiving concessions for their ethnicity.

The last time I checked, ethnicity wasn't a disability. There has to be a point beyond which society as a whole cannot continue to be held accountable for inequalities. Like the patients we will all encounter in the near future, their health depends upon our contributions as well as their own responsibility to self.

Progress is a two-way street.

Click to expand...

he makes the pitch....ooooooo...a slider....swing and a miss!!!
infiniti pass that beer

star22 said:

I agree with this. But what I don't understand is that if we have know about the ethnic disparities in medicine for so long, why hasn't more been done (by the medical community, med schools themselves, states that have high populations of underserved, etc) to support these students along through high school, college, etc so that when it comes time to apply, a competitive application will look the same across the ethnicities.

Click to expand...

It would have to start in middle school or elementary, because the differential in education is seen that early. As I have observed myself in school transferring from a less afluent, mostly URM middle school, to a more affluent mostly white middle school- the difference is the amount of money and resources that a school has. In other words it is not really race, it is an economic issue. How to solve it?

Take property taxes from the more affluent neighborhoods, and spend it in the less affluent neighborhoods. Oh, but then they would scream bloody murder.

So it is cheaper, and you have less people angry, if you wait until the senior year of high school or college, and give those who had less advantage, a chance to attempt to catch up by going to better schools.

And don't envy us - it is hard at any level to have to perform at a level beyond which you have been educated in the past. It hurt like a mother for me in the eighth grade. However, many of us are somehow able to catch up and get ahead of the class, I did.

LaDoctorFutura said:

I think we can say the playing field are more or less level when there is more than 5% of black males entering medical school each year. When medical school acceptees are more comparable to society's make-up, the arguments might stop.

Ethnicity is not a disability, the social circumstances surrounding certain ethnic groups can be seen as disabling.

Click to expand...

And tell me why medical school acceptees have to mirror society's make-up? Really, I'd like to understand this argument because I think it's just absolutely bogus. And it's funny because it's always quoted as a reason why we need AA.

If you want to say, "Oh, they go back to their communities to practice," I find that difficult to believe.

autoimmunity said:

And tell me why medical school acceptees have to mirror society's make-up? Really, I'd like to understand this argument because I think it's just absolutely bogus. And it's funny because it's always quoted as a reason why we need AA.

If you want to say, "Oh, they go back to their communities to practice," I find that difficult to believe.

Click to expand...

They don't all, but the stats say that URMs are more likely to practice in underserved communities.

Rafa said:

Yup. Back in the "good ol' days", when med schools were 95% male, and 5% male, I imagine there were males who'd attack that version of AA with eloquent arguments such as:

"The last time I checked, gender wasn't a disability." (Har har).

Click to expand...

What are you arguing? Were women asking for concessions? As far as I know, they were only asking for the OPPORTUNITY.

autoimmunity said:

What are you arguing? Were women asking for concessions? As far as I know, they were only asking for the OPPORTUNITY.

Click to expand...

Where do you find throngs of URMs monolithically asking for concessions?

Brainsucker said:

They don't all, but the stats say that URMs are more likely to practice in underserved communities.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see the stats. I'm not trying to nitpick, I just want to see it before I believe it.

autoimmunity said:

I'd like to see the stats. I'm not trying to nitpick, I just want to see it before I believe it.

Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/search?q=mino...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Lots of articles to choose from, but you could start with the UCSF one if you like.

Rafa said:

Where do you find throngs of URMs monolithically asking for concessions?

Click to expand...

Isn't that how AA came to be? I'm not exactly sure about its origins. But if you are, I would love to be enlightened.

autoimmunity said:

And tell me why medical school acceptees have to mirror society's make-up? Really, I'd like to understand this argument because I think it's just absolutely bogus. And it's funny because it's always quoted as a reason why we need AA.

If you want to say, "Oh, they go back to their communities to practice," I find that difficult to believe.

Click to expand...

After graduating, from medical school with $200,000+ in educational loan debt, I think anybody, URM or not had better practice wherever they can make enough money to pay this back first.

Whether a URM practices in their own community or not, should depend on whether that community can allow them to make a living. If not, charity work should be in their personal time just like any other doctor. No one shold be expected make a full time commitment to that kind of work until their debt is paid off.

autoimmunity said:

Isn't that how AA came to be? I'm not exactly sure about its origins. But if you are, I would love to be enlightened.

Click to expand...

You just said (two posts ago?) that women weren't asking for concessions. However, the overwhelming percentage of people to benefit from AA in the past century have been women. Therefore, you've got a contradiction here. Either women were asking for concessions (like you state here), or they were asking for the OPPORTUNITY (like you stated farther up the page).

If AA is about giving the opportunity to people who've been largely denied opportunities (by the gov't and people in power in the majority population) over a certain period of history, then it makes sense to analyze AA for URMs with the same standards you'd use to analyze AA for women in the 20th century - since women have been the ultimate under-represented minorities for the majority of this country's history.

Rafa said:

You just said (two posts ago?) that women weren't asking for concessions. However, the overwhelming percentage of people to benefit from AA in the past century have been women. Therefore, you've got a contradiction here. Either women were asking for concessions (like you state here), or they were asking for the OPPORTUNITY (like you stated farther up the page).

If AA is about giving the opportunity to people who've been largely denied opportunities (by the gov't and people in power in the majority population) over a certain period of history, then it makes sense to analyze AA for URMs with the same standards you'd use to analyze AA for women in the 20th century - since women have been the ultimate under-represented minorities for the majority of this country's history.

Click to expand...

Were women ever admitted with lower average stats?

autoimmunity said:

Isn't that how AA came to be? I'm not exactly sure about its origins. But if you are, I would love to be enlightened.

Click to expand...

It originated as something civil rights leaders (including MLK Jr.) advocated for in the mid-60s. Lyndon Johnson adopted it as a way to correct structural iniquities. During the Nixon administration, it became a mandatory part of the process of giving federal contracts. Universities adopted it as well, as racial protests swept campuses nationwide.

Forty years later, it still exists, and we're still debating it. When asked how long it would take for AA to level the playing field, Thurgood Marshall said something like, "one hundred years, at least".

The concern, obviously, for those of us who are skeptical of it, is that it will become permanently entrenched in our culture. It's supposed to solve a problem, but will any group that benefits from it ever willingly give it up if "equality" is achieved? No people, white, black, or purple, act against their self-interest. Hence, the emphasis has gone from "leveling the playing field" to "diversity", a justification that will allow AA to remain in place indefinitely.

Even worse, people who question it on SDN get flamed and treated like complete bigots.

If someone comes from a background that makes it more difficult for them to get into college, more difficult for them to make it through college, more difficult for them to get clinical experience and research experience, more difficult for them to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT, and more difficult for them to put together an effective application, it makes it more difficult for that person to get into medical school.

Click to expand...

Doesn't this apply to every applicant that has children and a family? Certainly more difficult to get into college - you have to arrange day care. More difficult to make it through college - less studying time. More difficult to get clinical and research experience - they have children to take care of. More difficult to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT? Well, they are generally poo-pooed by med school counselors, and often can't make the MCAT prep classes. All that together makes it more difficult to put together an effective application.

And what about people from small colleges that don't have pre-med advisors? Certainly these things would also be difficult for them.

So, I suppose all nontrads and folks from small colleges with few to no premed advisors should be given some type of benefit as well? I mean, seriously, where do we draw the line?

Brainsucker said:

Were women ever admitted with lower average stats?

Click to expand...

Yup - not because women were any less capable than men of achieving and succeeding in undergad and in med school, but because the number of women making it to the point of being *able* to apply to med school was initially so impossibly low, due to the various barriers women had to overcome to even reach the point of being successful college applicants to med school.

Rafa said:

You just said (two posts ago?) that women weren't asking for concessions. However, the overwhelming percentage of people to benefit from AA in the past century have been women. Therefore, you've got a contradiction here. Either women were asking for concessions (like you state here), or they were asking for the OPPORTUNITY (like you stated farther up the page).

If AA is about giving the opportunity to people who've been largely denied opportunities (by the gov't and people in power in the majority population) over a certain period of history, then it makes sense to analyze AA for URMs with the same standards you'd use to analyze AA for women in the 20th century - since women have been the ultimate under-represented minorities for the majority of this country's history.

Click to expand...

What's your big picture point? I'm saying that there comes a point where we have to say enough is enough. For the URM that has gained acceptance into a top UG through AA, does he/she still need to use AA to gain acceptance to medical school? If so, should said URM still need to use AA for say residency/internship/fellowship? Where do we draw the line?

As far as AA is applied today, it targets ethnicity, when it should instead be using socioeconomic status. If two applicants, one an URM the other an ORMajority, have the same exact applications (scores, ECs, LORs, yes I know this is anecdotal), accepting the URM based on AA is inherently valuing his/her ethnicity greater than that of the ORMajority.

Oh, and I thought MLK advocated for a time when people would be judged by their character and *NOT* by the color of their skin. We really need some way of judging applications without race or gender on them. Yeah, I know... but I have a dream.

eastsidaz said:

Hence, the emphasis has gone from "leveling the playing field" to "diversity", a justification that will allow AA to remain in place indefinitely.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe women still get significant advantages over men in the med school application process due to affirmative action?

autoimmunity said:

What's your big picture point? I'm saying that there comes a point where we have to say enough is enough. For the URM that has gained acceptance into a top UG through AA, does he/she still need to use AA to gain acceptance to medical school? If so, should said URM still need to use AA for say residency/internship/fellowship? Where do we draw the line?

As far as AA is applied today, it targets ethnicity, when it should instead be using socioeconomic status. If two applicants, one an URM the other an ORMajority, have the same exact applications (scores, ECs, LORs, yes I know this is anecdotal), accepting the URM based on AA is inherently valuing his/her ethnicity greater than that of the ORMajority.

Click to expand...

I especially like the part about repetitive use of AA. Shouldn't we only need to use it once? Otherwise, it's quite inefficient.

eastsidaz said:

Even worse, people who question it on SDN get flamed and treated like complete bigots.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I hate it because you get attacked like your some nazi racist anti-feminist etc etc etc. I'm just thinking through things like everyone else on here.

eastsidaz said:

It originated as something civil rights leaders (including MLK Jr.) advocated for in the mid-60s. Lyndon Johnson adopted it as a way to correct structural iniquities. During the Nixon administration, it became a mandatory part of the process of giving federal contracts. Universities adopted it as well, as racial protests swept campuses nationwide.

Forty years later, it still exists, and we're still debating it. When asked how long it would take for AA to level the playing field, Thurgood Marshall said something like, "one hundred years, at least".

The concern, obviously, for those of us who are skeptical of it, is that it will become permanently entrenched in our culture. It's supposed to solve a problem, but will any group that benefits from it ever willingly give it up if "equality" is achieved? No people, white, black, or purple, act against their self-interest. Hence, the emphasis has gone from "leveling the playing field" to "diversity", a justification that will allow AA to remain in place indefinitely.

Even worse, people who question it on SDN get flamed and treated like complete bigots.

Click to expand...

great post...so Ive been wondering, is AA used in residency matching?

Rafa said:

Yup - not because women were any less capable than men of achieving and succeeding in undergad and in med school, but because the number of women making it to the point of being *able* to apply to med school was initially so impossibly low, due to the various barriers women had to overcome to even reach the point of being successful college applicants to med school.

Click to expand...

Data, please. Maybe someone will be nice enough to do it for you like you did for me.

ShyRem said:

Doesn't this apply to every applicant that has children and a family? Certainly more difficult to get into college - you have to arrange day care. More difficult to make it through college - less studying time. More difficult to get clinical and research experience - they have children to take care of. More difficult to obtain guidance on studying for the MCAT? Well, they are generally poo-pooed by med school counselors, and often can't make the MCAT prep classes. All that together makes it more difficult to put together an effective application.

And what about people from small colleges that don't have pre-med advisors? Certainly these things would also be difficult for them.

So, I suppose all nontrads and folks from small colleges with few to no premed advisors should be given some type of benefit as well? I mean, seriously, where do we draw the line?

Click to expand...

I am both nontrad and from a relatively small school. Actually nontrad is looked on as a way of diversifying the class as far as I have seen on SDN.

Being from a small school? Definite disadvantage. The playing field is not level.

So I guess you have a small point there, except for the fact that the small school was chosen by the person who went there unlike race or socio economic background.

Rafa said:

Do you honestly believe women still get significant advantages over men in the med school application process due to affirmative action?

Click to expand...

No, but that playing field was much easier to level. All you had to do was grant women access--women aren't any likelier to be poor or disadvantaged. URMs are. I doubt you'll see a catch-up in terms of average numbers for URM matriculants as quickly, because there are too many other problems. Also, the prominence of AA as a public policy issue may make its beneficiaries complacent--anecdotally, I've personally spoken to premed URM friends who said they know their numbers don't have to be quite as good, which takes at least a little pressure off.

Of course, it also gives plenty of white/asian people a scapegoat for their application failures.