Amazing URM fact-oid

Getting into Med School is Hard? Not with BeMo.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
LizzyM

LizzyM

the evil queen of numbers
Verified Member
Faculty
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
27,738
Reaction score
51,523
Q: If no URM were admitted to medical school, what proportion of those non-URM who do not matriculate in a given year (are not admitted to any school) would still be without an offer of admission?

A: I don't have my handy tables with me but I'm going to venture an estimate: The proportion of non-matriculants who would still be sitting out in the cold if no URM were admitted to any US medical school (including Howard and the other historically black institutions) is ~89%.

(about half of the ~35,000 applicants per year are not admitted to any school. About 10% of those who are admitted are URM and 10% of those who are not admitted are URM. So, currently ~15,750 non-URM do not get admitted to any school. If there were no URM, the number of non-URM who would not be admitted to any school would be ~14,000)
Members don't see this ad.
 
Wow. That is not very many URM applicants. Guess that brings a whole new meaning to "Underrepresented."
 
Members don't see this ad :)
not to be a d!ck, but there are well over 45,000 applicants and rising.
 
Vox Animo said:
not to be a d!ck, but there are well over 45,000 applicants and rising.
Click to expand...

As I say, I don't have my handy tables with me from AMCAS. Plug in your own numbers and tell me what proportion you end up with.

DoctorPardi said:
So you're saying, only about 2,000 URM's are accepted every year? I am confused lol.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my recollection. Again, I could be off a little. I'd greatly appreciate someone running the numbers.

The point is the URM make a very small proportion of the pool. If there were no URM there would still be THOUSANDS of applicants who would not get admitted to any allopathic school in the US.
 
Psst!! Don't bring a logical argument about URM admissions up in here! You'll make the locals go nuts. They like their own happy little world where they can be sheltered from the truth and keep their scapegoats!
 
Vox Animo said:
not to be a d!ck, but there are well over 45,000 applicants and rising.
Click to expand...

not to be a d!ck, but says who?
 
LizzyM said:
Q: If no URM were admitted to medical school, what proportion of those non-URM who do not matriculate in a given year (are not admitted to any school) would still be without an offer of admission?

A: I don't have my handy tables with me but I'm going to venture an estimate: The proportion of non-matriculants who would still be sitting out in the cold if no URM were admitted to any US medical school (including Howard and the other historically black institutions) is ~89%.

(about half of the ~35,000 applicants per year are not admitted to any school. About 10% of those who are admitted are URM and 10% of those who are not admitted are URM. So, currently ~15,750 non-URM do not get admitted to any school. If there were no URM, the number of non-URM who would not be admitted to any school would be ~14,000)
Click to expand...

So the point you are trying to make is that if there were no URM's there would still be 14,000 non-URM's who will not get accepted anyway. That doesn't seem too amazing. You're trying to justify affirmative action by saying that thousands who were non-URM would get rejected anyway. Well what about the hundreds, maybe thousands who got the boot for a seat for a URM? That is really where debate lies.
 
astrife said:
You're trying to justify affirmative action by saying that thousands who were non-URM would get rejected anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't want to put words in LizzyM's mouth, but judging by the thread title (the word "fact-oid" was the first clue), I think she's tossing this out there as food for thought. I doubt that's her justification for the program.
 
notdeadyet said:
I don't want to put words in LizzyM's mouth, but judging by the thread title (the word "fact-oid" was the first clue), I think she's tossing this out there as food for thought. I doubt that's her justification for the program.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was a little assumptious of me to say that. However, this little factoid reeks of pro-affirmative action bias.
 
astrife said:
So the point you are trying to make is that if there were no URM's there would still be 14,000 non-URM's who will not get accepted anyway. That doesn't seem too amazing. You're trying to justify affirmative action by saying that thousands who were non-URM would get rejected anyway. Well what about the hundreds, maybe thousands who got the boot for a seat for a URM? That is really where debate lies.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that the picture that most people paint of Depression-era lines of non-URM pre-meds lining around the corner begging for bread and to get off the waiting list because minorities "took their spot" are highly exaggerated. Her point is that only it is only about few hundred of the least deserving applicants in the name of diversity. If you don't want it to be you, then work harder.

atleast that's how I took it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
astrife said:
So the point you are trying to make is that if there were no URM's there would still be 14,000 non-URM's who will not get accepted anyway. That doesn't seem too amazing. You're trying to justify affirmative action by saying that thousands who were non-URM would get rejected anyway. Well what about the hundreds, maybe thousands who got the boot for a seat for a URM? That is really where debate lies.
Click to expand...

What Lizzy is saying (I believe) is that people cry about URM's taking the more deserving white/asian person's spots in medical school, but in reality it isn't really that prevelent.

10% of people accepted to medical school are URMs. What percentage of those URMs would have gotten in regardless of their URM standing? I would say at least 5%. So you're looking at 5% less spaces being available to applicants who will most likely not meet the healthcare demands of the underserved populations. That 5% who are going to work in rural areas, or inner cities, or wherever will serve a community that is very likely to go with out appropriate care if "more deserving" white and Asian applicants were accepted.
 
So I was looking at this one chart on AMCAS that showed the proportionment of races that apply, matriculate, etc. over the span of a few years and I was astounded that the majority of undergraduate institutions had LESS THAN 15 URM'S applying for that year! I mean I knew the situation was bad but damn :eek: , I didn't realize it until I saw the statistics.
 
astrife said:
Yes, that was a little assumptious of me to say that. However, this little factoid reeks of pro-affirmative action bias.
Click to expand...

This has very little to do with affirmative action from a medical standpoint. In business, and other fields I can see an argument against affirmative action, this is not affirmative action.

The point is, underserved communities are usually those represented by URMs. Also URM's are as the name suggests, not very well represented in medical school. So this is a problem because it is much more likely that a URM doctor will take care of patients from his own ethnicity/community. It is also true that white/asian and other well reprsented populations will be less likely to take care of populations outside of their community. This means there is a need for doctors of specific ethnicities. So 5% of doctors are possibly less academically qualified, but you know what, they're going to be treating otherwise under treated patients.
 
LizzyM said:
The point is the URM make a very small proportion of the pool. If there were no URM there would still be THOUSANDS of applicants who would not get admitted to any allopathic school in the US.
Click to expand...
This does not make me feel happy. :( It's a scary world out there in pre-med land. :scared:
 
Also let me say this, affirmative action is where people of a specific ethnicity are given some advantage because they have supposedly endured hardships. Hardships which would exclude them from being as good of an applicant as someone else. For example a black applicant would probably have had a harder time going through crappy black public schools and then into college etc.

What medical schools are concentrating on isn't about rewarding people because they had a hard time, this is about rewarding people who are likely to serve an underserved community.

Now I can't say that affirmative action doesn't play any role in this at all. The fact of the matter still remains that ethnicities that make up URMs are generally less able to receive healthcare than others, in part because URM's, as the name implies, are under represented as doctors.
 
taylormade44 said:
does that "1/2 of all applicants are left out in the cold" worry anyone else either?
Click to expand...

we could throw one helluva bonfire party!
 
taylormade44 said:
does that "1/2 of all applicants are left out in the cold" worry anyone else either?
Click to expand...

So doesn't that mean statistically everyone who applies two years in a row will get in? :D
 
Vox Animo said:
So doesn't that mean statistically everyone who applies two years in a row will get in? :D
Click to expand...

No because if you said the total applicant popluation is 100 and 50 got in. Then the next year we assume the 50 who got rejected reapply, along with a new group of 50 who have never applied (to make the group 100 again), then only 50 of them would get in. So if acceptance was completely random then, you would have a 50% chance of getting rejected the first time and a 25% chance of getting rejected the second time, and so on and so forth.
 
DoctorPardi said:
No because if you said the total applicant popluation is 100 and 50 got in. Then the next year we assume the 50 who got rejected reapply, along with a new group of 50 who have never applied (to make the group 100 again), then only 50 of them would get in. So if acceptance was completely random then, you would have a 50% chance of getting rejected the first time and a 25% chance of getting rejected the second time, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Actually, he has a 25% chance of getting rejected twice, but he still has a 50% chance of being rejected the second time...assuming acceptance is completely random

Hrmm, you may have meant this, just didn't read it clearly enough.
 
Without getting into another AA debate, I agree with astrife. This "factoid" does not change the AA question at all. Whether URM's make up 1%, 10%, or 50% of total matriculants has no bearing on whether the current AA system is flawed.
 
DoctorPardi said:
No because if you said the total applicant popluation is 100 and 50 got in. Then the next year we assume the 50 who got rejected reapply, along with a new group of 50 who have never applied (to make the group 100 again), then only 50 of them would get in. So if acceptance was completely random then, you would have a 50% chance of getting rejected the first time and a 25% chance of getting rejected the second time, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...


easy, i was being sarcastic.
 
DoctorPardi said:
Also let me say this, affirmative action is where people of a specific ethnicity are given some advantage because they have supposedly endured hardships. Hardships which would exclude them from being as good of an applicant as someone else. For example a black applicant would probably have had a harder time going through crappy black public schools and then into college etc.

What medical schools are concentrating on isn't about rewarding people because they had a hard time, this is about rewarding people who are likely to serve an underserved community.

Now I can't say that affirmative action doesn't play any role in this at all. The fact of the matter still remains that ethnicities that make up URMs are generally less able to receive healthcare than others, in part because URM's, as the name implies, are under represented as doctors.
Click to expand...

I don't like your arguments at all. If you want to make up for hardships (retroactively as affirmative action is), then at least create a program that more accurately targets hardship. Offer affirmative action benefits based on socioeconomic status, not on race or ethnicity. If you want medical students who are more likely to have a connection to underserved populations and will therefore work with underserved populations, target the students that were themselves underserved growing up. Your arguments assume that affirmative action benefits those minority applicants who grew up underserved, when they could just as easily (and are much more likely to) benefit those minorities who had just as privileged of upbringing as any white suburbanite--afterall, they would have had a better education in the surburban schools, would have been more likely to attend a better college, etc.

In fact, and admitting that this is speculation on my part, I would argue that more underserved minorities would benefit from a program that targeted applicants by socioeconomic status rather than the current program which operates based on race and ethnicity. Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life. (Or, do you expect the poor inner-city applicants to also wish to serve the rural underserved populations?)
 
Fact: UT Houston's last year class had only three black guys out of 200 something. Very diverse indeed. I just needed to get this out of my system.
 
BigRedPremed said:
Without getting into another AA debate, I agree with astrife. This "factoid" does not change the AA question at all. Whether URM's make up 1%, 10%, or 50% of total matriculants has no bearing on whether the current AA system is flawed.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on one's perspective. Someone viewing the situation from a utilitarian standpoint might be very interested in the numbers.

Note that I'm not advocating a utilitarian stance on the issue, but I'm just saying that because the numbers don't matter to you and your argument doesn't mean that they're worthless to everyone.
 
:thumbup:
notdeadyet said:
I don't want to put words in LizzyM's mouth, but judging by the thread title (the word "fact-oid" was the first clue), I think she's tossing this out there as food for thought. I doubt that's her justification for the program.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
jackieMD2007 said:
Say when and where. I am a bonfire EXPERT!!! :love:
Click to expand...

Then you know that every respectable bonfire must also include a hayride.
 
Looque said:
Then you know that every respectable bonfire must also include a hayride.
Click to expand...

NO! I will NOT make out with you, Looque! I'm just TRYING TO post on SDN and all HE wants to do is MAKE OUT! Gosh! :laugh:
 
jackieMD2007 said:
NO! I will NOT make out with you, Looque! I'm just TRYING TO post on SDN and all HE wants to do is MAKE OUT! Gosh! :laugh:
Click to expand...

:( :(
 
Christo1 said:
Actually, he has a 25% chance of getting rejected twice, but he still has a 50% chance of being rejected the second time...assuming acceptance is completely random

Hrmm, you may have meant this, just didn't read it clearly enough.
Click to expand...

Actually you're right, I was doing crazy math.
 
Looque said:
I don't like your arguments at all. If you want to make up for hardships (retroactively as affirmative action is), then at least create a program that more accurately targets hardship. Offer affirmative action benefits based on socioeconomic status, not on race or ethnicity. If you want medical students who are more likely to have a connection to underserved populations and will therefore work with underserved populations, target the students that were themselves underserved growing up. Your arguments assume that affirmative action benefits those minority applicants who grew up underserved, when they could just as easily (and are much more likely to) benefit those minorities who had just as privileged of upbringing as any white suburbanite--afterall, they would have had a better education in the surburban schools, would have been more likely to attend a better college, etc.

In fact, and admitting that this is speculation on my part, I would argue that more underserved minorities would benefit from a program that targeted applicants by socioeconomic status rather than the current program which operates based on race and ethnicity. Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life. (Or, do you expect the poor inner-city applicants to also wish to serve the rural underserved populations?)
Click to expand...

Either I worded my post poorly or you misunderstood me. My claim is that medical schools and the AAMC are not using affirmative action, when they choose URMs. Instead, they are choosing applicants which are more likely to serve underserved communities. My point is, that affirmative action and the way medical schools view URM's are different things.

I agree that this goal could be better served by somehow determining an applicants "socioeconomic" status.
 
Looque said:
I don't like your arguments at all. If you want to make up for hardships (retroactively as affirmative action is), then at least create a program that more accurately targets hardship. Offer affirmative action benefits based on socioeconomic status, not on race or ethnicity. If you want medical students who are more likely to have a connection to underserved populations and will therefore work with underserved populations, target the students that were themselves underserved growing up. Your arguments assume that affirmative action benefits those minority applicants who grew up underserved, when they could just as easily (and are much more likely to) benefit those minorities who had just as privileged of upbringing as any white suburbanite--afterall, they would have had a better education in the surburban schools, would have been more likely to attend a better college, etc.

In fact, and admitting that this is speculation on my part, I would argue that more underserved minorities would benefit from a program that targeted applicants by socioeconomic status rather than the current program which operates based on race and ethnicity. Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life. (Or, do you expect the poor inner-city applicants to also wish to serve the rural underserved populations?)
Click to expand...

I agree with Looque on the benefits of socioeconomic selection.

However, I also understand Lizzy's point that URM is an issue that is blown out of proportion. In reality, people just need someone to blame. And while some may not agree with me, I think that with the added benefit from adcoms, it isn't entirely unjust that URMs receive criticism from their fellow peers as well. But then again, that's just my opinion.
-Dr. P.
 
Someone touched on this already, but I'll say it again. Just because a URM is admitted to a med school, it does not mean he or she is any less qualified than his Caucasian peers, or that he "took someone else's spot." If you see a [insert URM here] person in your first year lecture hall, are you automatically going to assume that he was accepted into that med school just because of his ethnicity? Perhaps he graduated Cum Laude from a top University and scored top MCAT scores. Perhaps he's truly passionate about medicine and would have gotten in regardless of race. Don't judge your classmates or future classmates :(
Everyone accepted into a first year class is meant to be there. Whether they are legacies, top students, or first generation college graduates, everyone is there for a purpose, and that is to become great physicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
BigRedPremed said:
Without getting into another AA debate, I agree with astrife. This "factoid" does not change the AA question at all. Whether URM's make up 1%, 10%, or 50% of total matriculants has no bearing on whether the current AA system is flawed.
Click to expand...

Nothing about the entire admission process is perfect. People on here gripe about AA and forget the kid who's dad donates to the school or is a public figure. There's a few seats already taken from possibly more qualified applicants. In line with your argument, while those are very few seats, they are seats all the same.
 
Looque said:
I don't like your arguments at all. If you want to make up for hardships (retroactively as affirmative action is), then at least create a program that more accurately targets hardship. Offer affirmative action benefits based on socioeconomic status, not on race or ethnicity. If you want medical students who are more likely to have a connection to underserved populations and will therefore work with underserved populations, target the students that were themselves underserved growing up. Your arguments assume that affirmative action benefits those minority applicants who grew up underserved, when they could just as easily (and are much more likely to) benefit those minorities who had just as privileged of upbringing as any white suburbanite--afterall, they would have had a better education in the surburban schools, would have been more likely to attend a better college, etc.

In fact, and admitting that this is speculation on my part, I would argue that more underserved minorities would benefit from a program that targeted applicants by socioeconomic status rather than the current program which operates based on race and ethnicity. Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life. (Or, do you expect the poor inner-city applicants to also wish to serve the rural underserved populations?)
Click to expand...

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
You may want to review calculating percentages. 5% of a previously designated 10% does not equate to 5% of the original whole.....

DoctorPardi said:
What Lizzy is saying (I believe) is that people cry about URM's taking the more deserving white/asian person's spots in medical school, but in reality it isn't really that prevelent.

10% of people accepted to medical school are URMs. What percentage of those URMs would have gotten in regardless of their URM standing? I would say at least 5%. So you're looking at 5% less spaces being available to applicants who will most likely not meet the healthcare demands of the underserved populations. That 5% who are going to work in rural areas, or inner cities, or wherever will serve a community that is very likely to go with out appropriate care if "more deserving" white and Asian applicants were accepted.
Click to expand...

But anyways...many of you are failing to recognize that minorities, even when compared to their white socio-economic counterparts, are still more likely to receive less adequate educations and healthcare. Furthermore, I'm a minority that has spent the majority of my life living in predominately white suburbs. While my financial resources were often equal to or surpassed many of my classmates, our experiences were not the same. I.E. I doubt they had to deal with being called racial slurs, never had the experience of NEVER having teachers that looked like them, no reflection of your culture's history being taught, or having to perpetually answer ignorant/racially insensitive questions posed by classmates....
 
Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life.
Click to expand...

How do you know that medical schools do not already take that into account? Medical schools, especially those that are located in rural communities, may indeed indirectly seek students (many of whom may not have "minority status") who are willing to work in these areas.
 
riceman04 said:
How do you know that medical schools do not already take that into account? Medical schools, especially those that are located in rural communities, may indeed indirectly seek students (many of whom may not have "minority status") who are willing to work in these areas.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some medical schools do take this into account and seek out those students. However, there certainly is no mandate passed down from the federal government for such procedures in admissions, such as affirmative action. My point is that if the federal government wishes to compensate for hardship and produce admissions that yield students who are more likely to reduce the prevalence of underserved populations, a policy based in race and ethnicity is not the way to do it. Such a policy disproportionately helps those from the targeted races and ethnicities that were not "underserved," but rather had privileged upbringings. Focus on socioeconomic status to target all individuals, irrespective of race, who truly were disadvantaged.
 
KittycooMD said:
Someone touched on this already, but I'll say it again. Just because a URM is admitted to a med school, it does not mean he or she is any less qualified than his Caucasian peers
Click to expand...

Take a look at MD Applicants. I've seen many more people who are URMs with low MCAT and GPAs than I have people who were "average" or really good. If you look at Harvard or UCSF, the only people who get in with GPAs less than 3.7 are URMs.

That being said, I don't think that these people are less able to do the work, but they haven't neccessarily done anything besides claiming to be a URM, and they get cut a LOT of slack for that in terms of GPA and MCAT.
 
Also, this program wouldn't leave out the large and important population of poor rural applicants who would be more likely to serve poor rural areas later in life.
Click to expand...

I need statistics for this. I think people tend to focus too much on anecdotal evidence and emphasize miniscule issues to make it seem like the intended purpose is somehow overshadowed by such an issue. Based on what you say...I am coming to the conclusion that you think priviledged minorities benefit more so that underpriviledged minorities who go to college.

Do I think there are flaws in the current system? Of course...but I also think that one would be able to find flaws in the system that you are promoting.

I come from an upper middle class afr. amer. family...so technically I should not reap the benefits of so called "aa"...however, I do know that I am more likely than you to work in an underserved community (which are definitely my plans by the way).
 
TSK said:
You may want to review calculating percentages. 5% of a previously designated 10% does not equate to 5% of the original whole.....



But anyways...many of you are failing to recognize that minorities, even when compared to their white socio-economic counterparts, are still more likely to receive less adequate educations and healthcare. Furthermore, I'm a minority that has spent the majority of my life living in predominately white suburbs. While my financial resources were often equal to or surpassed many of my classmates, our experiences were not the same. I.E. I doubt they had to deal with being called racial slurs, never had the experience of NEVER having teachers that looked like them, no reflection of your culture's history being taught, or having to perpetually answer ignorant/racially insensitive questions posed by classmates....
Click to expand...

oh god, you are DEFINITLEY an URM, those are some pretty tough times you went through, hold on, let me get on the phone to Harvard and tell them to accept you right away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
URM Clarification
Replies
7
Views
692
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
J
  • Locked
Does URM matter anymore?
Replies
5
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
capybaracarbonara
Stories or Facts in Work and Activities?
Replies
16
Views
663
Goro
Goro
T
WAMC 3.85/522 URM
Replies
4
Views
573
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
WAMC URM 3.5/511
Replies
19
Views
1K
LeaveNoTrace
L
Top