MCRI battles AA in Michigan

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DoctaJay

DoctaJay

bone breaker
Moderator Emeritus
Verified Member
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
52
check out the article below. Lets keep this discussion purely focused on the article and not how we feel about AA, since no one is changing anyone's mind.

http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporte...6/michigan.htm
Members don't see this ad.
 
No article on the destination page.
 
your link got messed up it's got the "..." in the middle
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Letting people vote on public policy = unamerican.
 
This post is sort of related to the article because I never hear people talk about measures taken to make sure minorities succeed in medical school. It's always about getting them in (which is basically what this whole article is about), and I think that is too narrow minded. Studies have shown that minority applicants are many times more likely to fail the Step 1 exam on their first attempt and not graduate in four years as compared to their white/asian counterparts. I totally agree that a diverse culture leads to a better learning environment. However, if you are going to treat people differently during the admissions process, then you should also treat them differently during their four years in medical schools and give special attention, tutoring, mentoring, etc. to those who need it so they can graduate on time. This doesn't seem to be happening since there is a significant difference in Step 1 success and 4 year graduation rates between minorities and white/asians.
 
agr285 said:
This post is sort of related to the article because I never hear people talk about measures taken to make sure minorities succeed in medical school. It's always about getting them in (which is basically what this whole article is about), and I think that is too narrow minded. Studies have shown that minority applicants are many times more likely to fail the Step 1 exam on their first attempt and not graduate in four years as compared to their white/asian counterparts. I totally agree that a diverse culture leads to a better learning environment. However, if you are going to treat people differently during the admissions process, then you should also treat them differently during their four years in medical schools and give special attention, tutoring, mentoring, etc. to those who need it so they can graduate on time. This doesn't seem to be happening since there is a significant difference in Step 1 success and 4 year graduation rates between minorities and white/asians.
Click to expand...

yea, i agree.
if they really want to better the minorities, they should attack the problem at its base.. i.e. enhance their primary and secondary education..
the minorities who reach undergrad and grad/medical school are at least somewhat well-off, as opposed to the ones who do not reach those educational levels at all...
 
heeseop said:
yea, i agree.
if they really want to better the minorities, they should attack the problem at its base.. i.e. enhance their primary and secondary education..
the minorities who reach undergrad and grad/medical school are at least somewhat well-off, as opposed to the ones who do not reach those educational levels at all...
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
I agree with the previous posts. I don't think that is actually the base of the problem though. Here's a link to an article from CNN.com today:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/19/women.math.ap/index.html

Similarly, I think the negative stereotypes towards minorities and academic capabilities play a role in their performance in school. I saw a similar study done at Stanford that focused on this and minorites awhile back. Anyways, just a thought!:)
 
CaramelDlite said:
I agree with the previous posts. I don't think that is actually the base of the problem though. Here's a link to an article from CNN.com today:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/19/women.math.ap/index.html

Similarly, I think the negative stereotypes towards minorities and academic capabilities play a role in their performance in school. I saw a similar study done at Stanford that focused on this and minorites awhile back. Anyways, just a thought!:)
Click to expand...

If that's true, then its kind of a catch 22. The AA policy itself perptuates the negative stereotypes that are placed on minorities. As long there is a policy that benefits certain med applicants on the basis of race, there will always be negative bias towards med students of that race. So on one hand you need the policy to make sure there is an adequate minority representation in medicine, but at the same time the policy creates an atmosphere that plays a role in minorities performingly poorly. Kind of frustrating, don't you think?
 
agr285 said:
If that's true, then its kind of a catch 22. The AA policy itself perptuates the negative stereotypes that are placed on minorities. As long there is a policy that benefits certain med applicants on the basis of race, there will always be negative bias towards med students of that race. So on one hand you need the policy to make sure there is an adequate minority representation in medicine, but at the same time the policy creates an atmosphere that plays a role in minorities performingly poorly. Kind of frustrating, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Well I think that is also to assume that negative stereotypes were exacerbated by/ began with AA legislation. I find it hard to full believe this; intellectual superiority discussions began centuries ago and continue today. That's pretty frustrating too, don't you think?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The MCRI is amusing because it isn't just a "ban affirmative action" bill... it does a hell of a lot more, if you actually read the text of the proposal. Of course, all its proponents misrepresent what it is by focusing on affirmative action, which is admittedly the most obvious and important facet. The end result is that any person uneducated on the content of the MCRI will vote for it simply because of the wording on the proposal, and many educated people will be blind to any other implications of it because they're staunchly against affirmative action.

Once the MCRI passes, Planned Parenthood ceases to exist in Michigan. Does your school have any "women in science and engineering" programs? Well, Michigan schools won't. State-funded breast and cervical cancer screening programs? Battered womens' shelters? None of that. Of course, women will still support the MCRI despite this, because the average voter is tremendously uninformed, and think this is a magical "keep unqualified minorities out of our schools" bill.

I am of the opinion that affirmative action needs reform, not outright banning... but even if you think affirmative action should be eliminated, the MCRI is ridiculous.
 
_ian said:
The MCRI is amusing because it isn't just a "ban affirmative action" bill... it does a hell of a lot more, if you actually read the text of the proposal. Of course, all its proponents misrepresent what it is by focusing on affirmative action, which is admittedly the most obvious and important facet. The end result is that any person uneducated on the content of the MCRI will vote for it simply because of the wording on the proposal, and many educated people will be blind to any other implications of it because they're staunchly against affirmative action.

Once the MCRI passes, Planned Parenthood ceases to exist in Michigan. Does your school have any "women in science and engineering" programs? Well, Michigan schools won't. State-funded breast and cervical cancer screening programs? Battered womens' shelters? None of that. Of course, women will still support the MCRI despite this, because the average voter is tremendously uninformed, and think this is a magical "keep unqualified minorities out of our schools" bill.

I am of the opinion that affirmative action needs reform, not outright banning... but even if you think affirmative action should be eliminated, the MCRI is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

hell, even DeVoss doesnt support the MCRI. (granholm bringing that up was one of the more amusing moments in the first debate)

/and while we're at it, can we ban alumni scholarships/acceptances? Hell, lets make scholarship athletes meet the same academic requirements as the rest of the students too.
 
_ian said:
...Does your school have any "women in science and engineering" programs? Well, Michigan schools won't...
Click to expand...

I think we'll survive.

I admire your religious faith in the power of government to get women into science and engineering.

Dude. The sky is not falling.

P. Bear, MD
Emergency Medicine Resident, Lansing, MI
Voting For it Just to Spite Its Opponents
 
Besides, I'm so sick of "celebrating diversity" that I'll reflexively vote for anything that doesn't.

As if our institutions of higher learning will stop admitting minorities. Ain't going to happen. Most universities are diploma mills and there's no way they'll refuse an important source of revenue. The standards for admission to most state universities are so low that nobody is going to be denied admission for any reason short of an inablity read...and even that's negotiable.

You folks get worked up over the craziest and most unimportant things.
 
Panda Bear said:
I think we'll survive.

I admire your religious faith in the power of government to get women into science and engineering.

Dude. The sky is not falling.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the strawman. Try again.

Panda Bear said:
Besides, I'm so sick of "celebrating diversity" that I'll reflexively vote for anything that doesn't.

As if our institutions of higher learning will stop admitting minorities. Ain't going to happen. Most universities are diploma mills and there's no way they'll refuse an important source of revenue. The standards for admission to most state universities are so low that nobody is going to be denied admission for any reason short of an inablity read...and even that's negotiable.

You folks get worked up over the craziest and most unimportant things.
Click to expand...
Elimination of affirmative action isn't the problem with the MCRI by a long shot. Not that I really agree with your post, but this isn't the place, nor do I really feel like getting into that tangent.

Honestly, I find it funny, if my first post didn't get that across. I like to just stand back and laugh at this stuff, because the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion.
 
Below are some interesting comments from the article:

Opponents also cite two examples of similar anti-affirmative action measures enacted in 1996 and 1998 in California and Washington state, respectively, as having had detrimental effects on minority university enrollment. Immediately following the passage of these measures, both states suffered decreases in minority enrollment in state higher education programs, employment, and contracting, according to the Leadership Council on Civil Rights.

The MCRI deemed "successful" the efforts in California and Washington, claiming recently increased admissions rates of "underrepresented minorities" in those states and higher graduation rates for black students.

Terrell, however, disagreed with that assessment. "The supposition that ending affirmative action will somehow result in equal opportunity doesn't square with this country's track record for access to education and health care," he said. "It's because we don't have a level playing field that affirmative action is so important."

In California and Washington, although the percentages have since increased in some instances, they still are low. According to the AAMC, of 1,047 matriculants to California medical schools in 2005, only 39 were African-American and 121 were Latino or Hispanic. At the University of Washington, 18 students from underrepresented minorities enrolled in 1996 and only seven in 2001. Concern about undergraduate enrollment levels recently spurred a University of California Board of Regents decision to study the effects of 10 years without affirmative action.

"These measures have had a chilling effect on underrepresented access to higher education in Washington and in California," Terrell said.

According to statistics in the AAMC publication "Minorities in Medical Education: Facts and Figures 2005," physicians from minority groups are more likely to work with minority patients, who, historically, have been medically underserved. More than half of African-American medical school graduates surveyed said they planned to work in an underserved area, compared with less than one-fifth of Caucasian graduates.

Its amazing that the MCRI can deem what happened in Cali and Washington a sucess. Its apparently true that when schools really don't have to promote diversity by admitting minorities that they really stop trying. Admissions of blacks would probably (and I'm exageratting) revert to the same rates during the 1940s. The reason why minority doctors are admitted is because their representation in medicine is abysmal. I can't see that representation somehow increasing if the MCRI bill is passed. I guess we will see how it all turns out.

P.S.-I really want to thank everyone for keeping this thread civil and educated.
 
heeseop said:
yea, i agree.
if they really want to better the minorities, they should attack the problem at its base.. i.e. enhance their primary and secondary education..
the minorities who reach undergrad and grad/medical school are at least somewhat well-off, as opposed to the ones who do not reach those educational levels at all...
Click to expand...

Agreed! It's a surprise this issue isn't raised as often as it should. A reason why might be that primary education in lower income communities are in such bad shape that the costs to improve these schools and therefore the academic training that these students receive is unimaginable. It's easier to place the responsibility at institutes of higher education instead.

In my opinion, AA is a bandaid to the gaping wound of academic unequality. Like any bandaid, however, it gets dirtier as it tries to cover the wound and it is only a temporary fix. I'd say AA needs to exist as long as it is evident that the quality of education across ethnicities is unevenly distributed. Afterall, statistics have shown that medical students from the lower-income bracket are more likely to return to their communities to help the medically underserved.

I've got my own story to add. I mentored an 8th grader whose teachers and principle labeled as a high-risk youth. Before I even got to see his face, I sat down with the principle and listened for half an hour about how this kid wasn't going to pass 8th grade and was probably going to drop out of school like his friends. The best option for me as his mentor, he concluded, was to be his friend.

I didn't let any other people's opinions lower my expectations of my student. There were many reasons that contributed to his academic troubles. He came from a broken home, had no role models other than older kids in the neighborhood who made him steal alcohol from a nearby grocery and got him into trouble with the law, and there was no one in his life to encourage him.

I don't care if you're black, asian, or white. Anyone from that kind of background who goes to a school where even the teachers and principles label you and forget about you, will not succeed in any sort of higher education.

My kid graduated btw. He's a junior in high school and already has a plan for his future.
 
^^^ Awesome post, reck1ess. :thumbup:
 
I dont like hearing how people who did not have the ECs that I do or the GPA or the MCAT score I got, and still make it into medical school because they are a minority. What part of being Hispanic, African American or any other race makes someone with low credentials a good candidate for medical school?
 
viper2fast505 said:
I dont like hearing how people who did not have the ECs that I do or the GPA or the MCAT score I got, and still make it into medical school because they are a minority. What part of being Hispanic, African American or any other race makes someone with low credentials a good candidate for medical school?
Click to expand...
Lets not veer off topic.
 
I think there are two competing and perhaps overlapping issues here affecting medical schools:
1) Helping minorities to gain access to higher education.
2) Providing health care to underserved communities.

1:
Referendums like this always seem to pass. My guess is that this is because the American ideal of rugged individualism ("pulling yourself up by your bootstraps") is held so strongly by so many. As I've volunteered more and as I've reflected on my upbringing next to an Indian Reservation, I've begun to veer from this opinion myself. I would argue that at least two groups have had their bootstraps ripped away through varying degrees of oppression throughout American history: African-Americans and Native-Americans. Both groups had thier culture and history ripped from them. They were rounded up and coraled like livestock, their dignity was stolen, their self-worth was crushed. Black folk weren't allowed to read. Indians weren't taught to read. If noone in a family has read for generations, how does a child learn to read? Or to understand the importance of education? Or to even believe it's possible to improve one's lot in life? The cylce continues throughout the generations (reck1ess stated this case more eloquently and succinctly in his post above). AA is one small way to give these groups a hand up. If anyone deserves a hand up, it is these groups. I don't think it is enough and that it may not be the most efficient way to go about it. Emphasis at the primary and secondary levels would certainly be more effective, but probably doesn't happen because it is more costly and requires long-term vigilance.

2:
Bringing higher quality/access to healthcare to underserved communities is a goal I think most would agree with. If AA is the only way in which we've been able to summon the courage to address this problem, then it is better than nothing. The quotes from doctajay above show the negative impacts that doing nothing has had in CA and WA already. Again, I think AA does not go far enough. Can't we provide greater incentives to work in these communities? Tax-breaks, mortgage rates, substantial pay increase, guaranteed 40 hr work week, and other perks could get doctors to go to these communities. The military gives scholarships and stipends. Why not have a domestic medical service corps that does the same? I'm not sure what all the answers are, but AA is not the only piece of the puzzle. It doesn't make sense to get rid of AA, however, without replacing it with other measures to address real problems and discrepencies.

If the MCRI passes, it appears Michigan will be taking a big step back (since AA is one of the few steps forward that's been attempted) in both of these areas.
 
_ian said:
The MCRI is amusing because it isn't just a "ban affirmative action" bill... it does a hell of a lot more, if you actually read the text of the proposal. Of course, all its proponents misrepresent what it is by focusing on affirmative action, which is admittedly the most obvious and important facet. The end result is that any person uneducated on the content of the MCRI will vote for it simply because of the wording on the proposal, and many educated people will be blind to any other implications of it because they're staunchly against affirmative action.

Once the MCRI passes, Planned Parenthood ceases to exist in Michigan. Does your school have any "women in science and engineering" programs? Well, Michigan schools won't. State-funded breast and cervical cancer screening programs? Battered womens' shelters? None of that. Of course, women will still support the MCRI despite this, because the average voter is tremendously uninformed, and think this is a magical "keep unqualified minorities out of our schools" bill.

I am of the opinion that affirmative action needs reform, not outright banning... but even if you think affirmative action should be eliminated, the MCRI is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


:thumbup: :thumbup:

You know I was wondering if there were groups that sought to ensure the general public is aware of complete political positions. The reason I ask is because, like you mentioned, politicians/political parties/congress/special interest groups only emphasize the points of their proposals (or rebuttals) that they feel would generate the most support for them.

Do you know of any non-partisan groups that seek to fully inform the public?

Thanks
 
If AAMC wants more doctors to go to underserved communities why not do it in a more direct way, like by paying for a student's medical school provided they work in an underserved community for 5 years. My feeling is that they understand that much of the justification for AA in medical school rests on this idea that minorites will go back to underserved communities so actually trying to directly fix the problem could bring down AA. Funny that they are, at the same time, screwing over these communities by not giving them enough access to health care.
 
Instatewaiter said:
If AAMC wants more doctors to go to underserved communities why not do it in a more direct way, like by paying for a student's medical school provided they work in an underserved community for 5 years. My feeling is that they understand that much of the justification for AA in medical school rests on this idea that minorites will go back to underserved communities so actually trying to directly fix the problem could bring down AA. Funny that they are, at the same time, screwing over these communities by not giving them enough access to health care.
Click to expand...

because ummm... AA doesnt cost them anything.
 
GoodDoctor said:
I think there are two competing and perhaps overlapping issues here affecting medical schools:
1) Helping minorities to gain access to higher education.
2) Providing health care to underserved communities.

1:
Referendums like this always seem to pass. My guess is that this is because the American ideal of rugged individualism ("pulling yourself up by your bootstraps") is held so strongly by so many. As I've volunteered more and as I've reflected on my upbringing next to an Indian Reservation, I've begun to veer from this opinion myself. I would argue that at least two groups have had their bootstraps ripped away through varying degrees of oppression throughout American history: African-Americans and Native-Americans. Both groups had thier culture and history ripped from them. They were rounded up and coraled like livestock, their dignity was stolen, their self-worth was crushed. Black folk weren't allowed to read. Indians weren't taught to read. If noone in a family has read for generations, how does a child learn to read? Or to understand the importance of education? Or to even believe it's possible to improve one's lot in life? The cylce continues throughout the generations (reck1ess stated this case more eloquently and succinctly in his post above). AA is one small way to give these groups a hand up. If anyone deserves a hand up, it is these groups. I don't think it is enough and that it may not be the most efficient way to go about it. Emphasis at the primary and secondary levels would certainly be more effective, but probably doesn't happen because it is more costly and requires long-term vigilance.

2:
Bringing higher quality/access to healthcare to underserved communities is a goal I think most would agree with. If AA is the only way in which we've been able to summon the courage to address this problem, then it is better than nothing. The quotes from doctajay above show the negative impacts that doing nothing has had in CA and WA already. Again, I think AA does not go far enough. Can't we provide greater incentives to work in these communities? Tax-breaks, mortgage rates, substantial pay increase, guaranteed 40 hr work week, and other perks could get doctors to go to these communities. The military gives scholarships and stipends. Why not have a domestic medical service corps that does the same? I'm not sure what all the answers are, but AA is not the only piece of the puzzle. It doesn't make sense to get rid of AA, however, without replacing it with other measures to address real problems and discrepencies.

If the MCRI passes, it appears Michigan will be taking a big step back (since AA is one of the few steps forward that's been attempted) in both of these areas.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
Instatewaiter said:
If AAMC wants more doctors to go to underserved communities why not do it in a more direct way, like by paying for a student's medical school provided they work in an underserved community for 5 years. My feeling is that they understand that much of the justification for AA in medical school rests on this idea that minorites will go back to underserved communities so actually trying to directly fix the problem could bring down AA. Funny that they are, at the same time, screwing over these communities by not giving them enough access to health care.
Click to expand...

There are several govt sponsored programs that actually offer to pay for a large portion of a med student's education if they committ a specific amount of time to working in underserved communities. What is interesting is that it has been documented that URM's have been much more likely to pursue such opportunities compared to their non-URM counterparts. But this is something that is always swept under the rug by people who refuse to move beyond their 1-dimensional analysis of the implemented policies.

But back to the article: I agree with reckless' and gooddoc's post
 
riceman04 said:
There are several govt sponsored programs that actually offer to pay for a large portion of a med student's education if they committ a specific amount of time to working in underserved communities. What is interesting is that it has been documented that URM's have been much more likely to pursue such opportunities compared to their non-URM counterparts. But this is something that is always swept under the rug by people who refuse to move beyond their 1-dimensional analysis of the implemented policies.

But back to the article: I agree with reckless' and gooddoc's post
Click to expand...

So being someone who IS interested in working with underserved populations here, I was wondering, if you happen to know what and where these programs are. I always hear people talking about them, and tried looking once but couldn't find 'em. Anybody have any info?
 
HumbleMD said:
So being someone who IS interested in working with underserved populations here, I was wondering, if you happen to know what and where these programs are. I always hear people talking about them, and tried looking once but couldn't find 'em. Anybody have any info?
Click to expand...

This is the one I know of: http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/join_us/lrp.asp
National Health Service Corps.

Well, the MCRI passed. Lawsuits, challenges, plans to continue as normal until ordered to stop by the courts, individual decisions for each program under question... It's going to be a long time until the real ramifications are worked out. All stemming from a girl who didn't get into Michigan's undergrad because, according to her, of AA (I may be stretching the facts somewhat, though). Since debating online is next to pointless, especially since I likely won't be back on here for weeks, I'll just add that it is mildly humorous that this fight over AA started in AA.
 
If minorities are concerned that not enough individuals from their culture are becoming doctors, then it should be their obligation and not the government's to do something about it. I understand that it is very difficult for someone from the lower classes to become a doctor, but what's wrong with this? Why should it be easier? What's wrong with a father who busted his ass off to become a doctor providing advantages for his children? What's wrong with admiring the doctor who was raised in poverty and who was able to achieve more in his life than the son of two Harvard graduates? Since affirmative action does allow some minorities who are less qualified to be admitted into medical school, I think it would be foolish for me not to question the credentials of a black or hispanic doctor. Anybody who accuses me of racism for this is a fool. Of course if affirmative action did not exist and I still questioned the qualifications of my doctor simply because he were black of hispanic, I would consider myself to be a racist. If we want to avoid racial tension in the future, then this country must become more of a meritocracy. Blacks and hispanics do not have a RIGHT to proportional representation in medicine. If they want better representation, then they are going to have to earn it!
 
i think that AA will prevail. I mean OF COURSE the minorities (which if im not mistaken make up a good chunk of michigan) are gonna vote for it. And the remainder of the population is probably too dumb to know better so some of them will vote for it. Just from observation, AA ALWAYS prevails because of politics.
 
HumbleMD said:
So being someone who IS interested in working with underserved populations here, I was wondering, if you happen to know what and where these programs are. I always hear people talking about them, and tried looking once but couldn't find 'em. Anybody have any info?
Click to expand...

Yeah...you can do a google search, go onto the AAMC website, or go to individual school websites. On school websites, they are usually listed under scholarships opportunities.

They are definitely there though.
 
dajimmers said:
This is the one I know of: http://nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/join_us/lrp.asp
National Health Service Corps.

Well, the MCRI passed. Lawsuits, challenges, plans to continue as normal until ordered to stop by the courts, individual decisions for each program under question... It's going to be a long time until the real ramifications are worked out. All stemming from a girl who didn't get into Michigan's undergrad because, according to her, of AA (I may be stretching the facts somewhat, though). Since debating online is next to pointless, especially since I likely won't be back on here for weeks, I'll just add that it is mildly humorous that this fight over AA started in AA.
Click to expand...


Yeah the girl was an undergrad who scored a measly 25 on her ACT
 
paranoid_eyes said:
i think that AA will prevail. I mean OF COURSE the minorities (which if im not mistaken make up a good chunk of michigan) are gonna vote for it. And the remainder of the population is probably too dumb to know better so some of them will vote for it. Just from observation, AA ALWAYS prevails because of politics.
Click to expand...

The Proposal is Michigan already passed with 58% approval. Affirmative Action in Michigan is done! The wise people of Michigan clearly value merit.
 
yea i feel embarrassed now, but i still stand by the point that AA (which im firmly against btw) will haunt us at most other schools. Im glad michigan is AA free.
 
OrthoJock said:
The Proposal is Michigan already passed with 58% approval. Affirmative Action in Michigan is done! The wise people of Michigan clearly value merit.
Click to expand...

clearly you're not a UofM applicant...

either way there was nothing in proposal 2 that specifically bans AA. It will take another few years of lawsuits before it ever goes away.
 
maestro1625 said:
clearly you're not a UofM applicant...

either way there was nothing in proposal 2 that specifically bans AA. It will take another few years of lawsuits before it ever goes away.
Click to expand...

Clearly you're not a U of M student (lose the 'tude man)...

I don't know which ballot language you saw, but it's pretty clear that AA is banned by the proposal. Aside from having the words "ban affirmativ action" in the ballot proposal (which will not be in the constitution but nevertheless used by the courts to interpret it). After specifically mentioning three state public universities (each of which have med schools, and strong AA programs) the consitution will state they "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." And if that doesn't convince you that it will ban affirmative action, look no further than Texas or California to see the result. Yes, they probably won't take effect 'til the end of this year, but I wouldn't be suprised if it were sooner because the MCRI is probably poised to defend the law.

All in all, however, I don't see this effecting med school decisions that much as it's so subjective and not purely a numbers game or a point system, and would be very difficult to prove an adcom chose one member over another using AA principles.
 
reck1ess said:
I'd say AA needs to exist as long as it is evident that the quality of education across ethnicities is unevenly distributed.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a point, but even if you put a child from the worst school into the best..
if the kids come from a family where the parents don't value education and support and help tutor their children at home. Its not going to do much good. You need to change the perspectives of the families at hand as well.
You have to change the problem cycle at the real root of the problem.
 
GoodDoctor said:
I think there are two competing and perhaps overlapping issues here affecting medical schools:
1) Helping minorities to gain access to higher education.
2) Providing health care to underserved communities.

1:
Referendums like this always seem to pass. My guess is that this is because the American ideal of rugged individualism ("pulling yourself up by your bootstraps") is held so strongly by so many. As I've volunteered more and as I've reflected on my upbringing next to an Indian Reservation, I've begun to veer from this opinion myself. I would argue that at least two groups have had their bootstraps ripped away through varying degrees of oppression throughout American history: African-Americans and Native-Americans. Both groups had thier culture and history ripped from them. They were rounded up and coraled like livestock, their dignity was stolen, their self-worth was crushed. Black folk weren't allowed to read. Indians weren't taught to read. If noone in a family has read for generations, how does a child learn to read? Or to understand the importance of education? Or to even believe it's possible to improve one's lot in life? The cylce continues throughout the generations (reck1ess stated this case more eloquently and succinctly in his post above). AA is one small way to give these groups a hand up. If anyone deserves a hand up, it is these groups. I don't think it is enough and that it may not be the most efficient way to go about it. Emphasis at the primary and secondary levels would certainly be more effective, but probably doesn't happen because it is more costly and requires long-term vigilance.
Click to expand...

What about the Japanese-Americans.. would you not say that they had their bootstraps ripped from them during WWII in the US? They are minorities, why doesn't AA apply to them?

Again, Many of their families work hard and have always held a good work ethic and valued education and supported their families. This looks like the overwhelming reason they have been able to still do well as a whole. .. No amount of AA handouts will ever instill these values into a group of people.
 
Dr.Millisevert said:
I agree with you to a point, but even if you put a child from the worst school into the best..
if the kids come from a family where the parents don't value education and support and help tutor their children at home. Its not going to do much good. You need to change the perspectives of the families at hand as well.
You have to change the problem cycle at the real root of the problem.
Click to expand...

This is the trouble I have with it though. I was very undecided on Prop 2 until the day before the election, but it's arguments like this that had me voting yes. In your argument, in order for it to support AA, one would have to make the judgement that Blacks and Hispanics overall do not value education, or at least less so than whites. So often in the debates over Prop 2, people would say that it's not just socio-economic status, but "more," but would then bring up how bad schools and parents are in the detroit area. They wouldn't bring up race though, so I saw no reason why an asian or white children living in poverty in Detroit Public schools shouldn't be afforded a leg up. If someone could put together a cogent argument as to why we should think of AA as a form of reparations, I'd be be more than happy to listen. But, as of yet, I have never heard this argument made, or even attempted. The idea of reparations is a fairly unpopular idea held by an overwhelming majority in the country, considering as Millisevert brought up with Japanese-Americans, that there are a number of minorites (and even non-minorities: the Irish, for example) who experienced oppression in the history of the United States, and aren't still begging for a hand out. Consider also the fact that the majority of U.S. citizens have lineages that were not present in the U.S. in the era of slavery or the trail of tears (my grandparents, for example came from Czechoslovalkia in the early 1900's and almost died in the mines of Pittsburgh).
 
Instatewaiter said:
If AAMC wants more doctors to go to underserved communities why not do it in a more direct way, like by paying for a student's medical school provided they work in an underserved community for 5 years. My feeling is that they understand that much of the justification for AA in medical school rests on this idea that minorites will go back to underserved communities so actually trying to directly fix the problem could bring down AA. Funny that they are, at the same time, screwing over these communities by not giving them enough access to health care.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Great idea!

Or alternativly you could just base your "assitance programs" on students who are recruited from those "Areas of need" to begin with. Obviously someone who grew up in an area of need (regardless of color) is much more likely to go back to service that area when they complete their training than someone from an upper middleclass suburb.. just because they are a "minority". No?
 
hmm, I looked it up and was wrong on the ballot language... either way, Michigan will likely do what they can to force another lawsuit before complying...
 
OrthoJock said:
Since affirmative action does allow some minorities who are less qualified to be admitted into medical school, I think it would be foolish for me not to question the credentials of a black or hispanic doctor. Anybody who accuses me of racism for this is a fool.
Click to expand...

So, do you automatically assume every minority in medical school is there because of affirmative action? A friend of mine who is black just got a 41S on his MCAT. His mom had to borrow money to pay for his MCAT and application costs. Please don't go into medical school or better yet the medical field with that type of mentality. It's a waist of time, and it can lead to some strained relationships that might come in hand some time down the road.

Would you say that quote in a medical school interview?
 
^plus, given the fact that you cant even find a primary care doc in my area who even graduated from a US med school (mine went to school in Mexico, and he's been fine--or better), minority docs are the least of your worries.
 
appleman said:
So, do you automatically assume every minority in medical school is there because of affirmative action? A friend of mine who is black just got a 41S on his MCAT. His mom had to borrow money to pay for his MCAT and application costs. Please don't go into medical school or better yet the medical field with that type of mentality. It's a waist of time, and it can lead to some strained relationships that might come in hand some time down the road.

Would you say that quote in a medical school interview?
Click to expand...

That is fantastic. I try my darndest to see through the stereotypes that AA enforces, but I really can't blame others for believing that an URM got into a school with lower scores, when the system is telling them that's exactly what happenned. It's frustrating that your super smart friend may be dealing with that stigma.
 
maestro1625 said:
hmm, I looked it up and was wrong on the ballot language... either way, Michigan will likely do what they can to force another lawsuit before complying...
Click to expand...

If anyone is interested, the ballot language can be found here:
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ballotlanguage.html
The "ballot language" is what people voted on, while the "actual language" is the ammendment that will be added to the Michigan constitution. Careful analysis of the language will also ally anyone's fears that certain gov't programs aimed at women's health will be challenged, as the language only includes University admissions, Public Jobs, and Public Contract granting, NOT programs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

M
Michigan vs Stony Brook
Replies
5
Views
901
cytomegalovirus123
C
M
Michigan vs UVA -- help please!
Replies
1
Views
249
thefirerisen
thefirerisen
F
Applying to both michigan state medical schools
Replies
6
Views
600
theoceanman
theoceanman
N
Western Michigan vs Vermont
Replies
5
Views
697
ACKjp
ACKjp
O
  • Poll
Creighton Omaha vs Western Michigan
Replies
6
Views
636
saltypapaya
S
Top