Rich URM's vs. poor whites and Asians

Originally posted by Fah-Q
Check out this data from an article on MSNBC.com. Very interesting. What do you guys think?

But achieving diversity through race-neutral means has proven much more difficult for professional schools. Part of the difficulty is that low-income whites and Asians, on average, score significantly better than middle- and upper-income blacks and Hispanics on standardized tests, making them more compelling candidates under most race-neutral admissions scenarios.
In 2001, for example, underrepresented minorities from families with incomes of $80,000 or more averaged 21.9 on the Medical School Admission Test; whites and Asians from families with incomes under $30,000 averaged 25.7 and 25.5, respectively.

Click to expand...

link?

http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf


page 24


I was pretty shocked when I read it too. It's interesting the AAMC exposed this data. It goes against Bok and Bowen's prescribed AA stragety of lying to the public.

sweet. Thanks Ryo! Good to have people around here with their heads screwed on straight..

This article still doesn't attack one of the central reasons for AA in med school admissions today. It's not just about creating a supposedly level playing field due to past injustices; It's about achieving diversity in a field where diversity is important. If only 3% of physicians in South Carolina/Georgia/Alabama/Louisiana were black, the health needs of every group would not be served as well. And I'm not just talking about black physicians being more likely to go to underserved communities; It's true that many blacks and hispanics feel more comfortable going to a URM physician.....sometimes this trend even crosses socioeconomic boundaries.

AA is a success in that it increases the numbers of URM physicians across the country. I think this is a good thing. Even if AA as we know it today was thrown out by judiciary and legislative bodies, there would still be "unofficial" AA practiced by 95% of all med schools because they would understand that diversity is important when serving a diverse population.

Because only black doctors should serve black patients, right?

It is NOT a good thing to give underqualified doctors to people. You pro-AA guys have already tried to make this point. Who was the <b>hero URM</b> who went back to an URM community? Who was the "perfect example" of an AA URM giving back to URMs? I'll ask the question you guys asked me. <b>Bakke's scores were higher, but who made the most of his medical-school education? From whom did California taxpayers benefit more?''</b>

So, meanderson, whom the Calfornia taxpapers benefit more from? Bakke or Chavis?

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Because only black doctors should serve black patients, right?

Click to expand...

Exactly. The AA statements are inherently racist; Blacks only serving blacks, blacks and other URM's being "underqualified" therefore needing a boost? It's disgusting. Furthermore, they assume an inherent racism in white docs by saying that whites are less likely to serve blacks..They couch it in terms of statistics. OK, let's look at some stats.

Blacks score lower on the MCAT than Whites do.


Oh wait now..you can't say that... that is racist.

It's laughable, except they are a bit more than the fringe in the academic world.....

It really speaks to the dishonesty of the pro-AA people who want to make AA about "leveling the playing field". Perhaps, leveling the playing field for rich blacks vs. poor whites.?

It's just amazing to me that a black kid with all of the advantages of life (drives around in an Lexus, big $200K house, etc) can score lower on the MCAT then a poor non-URM kid that drives a 1989 Chevy Pos. Lower expectations lead to lower results.

>>>Because only black doctors should serve black patients, right?


Because many blacks feel more comfortable going to a black physician. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a clinical setting accepts this as true. Is it unfortunate? Sure. But that's the reality we have.


>>It is NOT a good thing to give underqualified doctors to people. >>You pro-AA guys have already tried to make this point. Who >>was the hero URM who went back to an URM community?

It's not really about going back to a black community. I don't really live in a black community. It is probably 65% white and 20-25% black. It isn't a disadvantaged community by most measures. Yet if we replaced all of our well-qualified black physicians with equally well-qualified white physicians, I'm pretty sure the needs of our population would not be met as adequately. We don't need black physicians just in chicago or south central LA. We don't black physicians in *most* communities around this country.


>>Who was the "perfect example" of an AA URM giving back to >>URMs?

Every black physician who treats any number of black patients(probably close to 100%) is giving something.


>>I'll ask the question you guys asked me. Bakke's scores were >>higher, but who made the most of his medical-school >>education? From whom did California taxpayers benefit more?''

>>So, meanderson, whom the Calfornia taxpapers benefit more >>from? Bakke or Chavis?

It's pointless to discuss individual cases. There are so many contradictions when comparing case to case......

Yes, we should pander to these people's feelings.... Your argument reeks of "Separate but Equal" mentality. Black doctors for black patients.

Who deified Patrick Chavis, meanderson? Who brought up this "individual case" of AA's beneficial and wonderful effects to the public? I'm just asking you the same question you guys asked me. So, <b> From whom did California taxpayers benefit more? Bakke or Chavis? </b>

Originally posted by meanderson
>>>Because only black doctors should serve black patients, right?


Because many blacks feel more comfortable going to a black physician. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a clinical setting accepts this as true. Is it unfortunate? Sure. But that's the reality we have.

Click to expand...

So we should keep qualified doctors out of the pool in favour of underqualified people in order to pander to a claimed racism (claimed by you in that quote) of an entire ethnic group? Sounds like discrimination to me. Sounds like why AA was started in the first place. Think about that.

Originally posted by Blitzkrieg
Exactly. The AA statements are inherently racist; Blacks only serving blacks, blacks and other URM's being "underqualified" therefore needing a boost? It's disgusting. Furthermore, they assume an inherent racism in white docs by saying that whites are less likely to serve blacks..They couch it in terms of statistics. OK, let's look at some stats.

Blacks score lower on the MCAT than Whites do.


Oh wait now..you can't say that... that is racist.

It's laughable, except they are a bit more than the fringe in the academic world.....

Click to expand...

Blitz--you are absolutely correct. In a world where we should be trying to wipe away racism, we are only promoting all the more. How ironic.

Yes, it's very ironic. Racism to combat racism.


Anyway, back to the OPs point. Regardless of the justifications for lower standards (A separate but equal health care system for blacks patients and doctors), why are we expecting so little effort and academic performance out of rich blacks?

Say you are right? We slowly end up with a VERY large number of white doctors, they score the high 30s MCATs and have the higher GPAs...then these doctors make more money than minorities in other professions. They can provide more for their kids (i.e. tutoring, MCAT prep, good private school education, housing....etc.)

This now results in these kids having more opprtunities than minority kids; they then become the majority of doctors like their parents and the cycle goes on and on...

I don't see AA as giving someone a free ride, but as taking them out of this cycle; CHANGING the order of what is really going on.
Again, for every $1 a Caucasian man has, an African-American has 11cents and a Latino 9cents...Ignoring that THIS stat is very telling and needs to change is very ignorant.

While AA is not the best policy, some rich URMs vs. poor white kids thing does happen, that is why there is a DISADVANTAGED category in the AMCAS application...if you are white, but have had low income throughout your life, you are DISADVANTAGED...I think this levels it a bit.

For the record, if the MCAT was in Spanish, i.e. not your native language, you would understand and appreciate how some Latino immigrants had to study their butts off just to get a decent score...Who is better qualified also has to do with how hard they had to work to get to the point of just applying.

I'm off, you guys can find all the holes in my argument you want, I don't care...if you have a high MCAT and high GPA and don't get in, maybe it has more to do with you being arrogant in your interviews than with a minority student taking "your" place...

It seems like the black medical school applicant has $80,000 for every $30,000 a white medical school applicant has, Lab-rat. That's a very telling number, no? Those black and Hispanic kids with 11 cents and 9 cents aren't exactly applying for medical school, are they? If they do, why can't they apply under the same great "disadvantaged status" you espouse for poor white applicants?

Anyway, I'm glad you think a *welfare* white kid coming from a $0-$15,000 (read: disadvantaged status) home should be on the same playing field as a black coming from a $80,000 home. Because, you know, both of those kids had the same *limited* educational opportunities and should be given an advantage over everyone else. Why do you think an $80,000 income black applicant should be given an advantage over a $30,000 income white applicant, lab-rat?

It's not about blacks taking away slots from whites. It's about merit. It's about civil rights. It's about a individual's right <B>NOT</B> to be discriminated against because of his/her race. I know it is very hard for you to imagine, but civil rights extend to white people too. Heck, I even heard civil rights extend to minority asians too.

Originally posted by Lab-Rat21
Say you are right? We slowly end up with a VERY large number of white doctors, they score the high 30s MCATs and have the higher GPAs...then these doctors make more money than minorities in other professions. They can provide more for their kids (i.e. tutoring, MCAT prep, good private school education, housing....etc.)

This now results in these kids having more opprtunities than minority kids; they then become the majority of doctors like their parents and the cycle goes on and on...

I don't see AA as giving someone a free ride, but as taking them out of this cycle; CHANGING the order of what is really going on.
Again, for every $1 a Caucasian man has, an African-American has 11cents and a Latino 9cents...Ignoring that THIS stat is very telling and needs to change is very ignorant.

While AA is not the best policy, some rich URMs vs. poor white kids thing does happen, that is why there is a DISADVANTAGED category in the AMCAS application...if you are white, but have had low income throughout your life, you are DISADVANTAGED...I think this levels it a bit.

For the record, if the MCAT was in Spanish, i.e. not your native language, you would understand and appreciate how some Latino immigrants had to study their butts off just to get a decent score...Who is better qualified also has to do with how hard they had to work to get to the point of just applying.

Click to expand...

Nope. If admissions was more about test scores and GPAs, asians and white jews would clean up. Wouldnt matter if they were rich or poor because education is one of things that is most highly valued in their households.

As for AA not giving a free ride, there's AA for elite high schools, college, grad school, and in the workplace too. Sounds like you can get punted all the way to the top without having to achieve as much as others if you are a URM.

Your claim that hispanics/latinos should be given extra consideration because they had to overcome language barriers as immigrants is just plain silly. Talk to the other immigrants that had to the deal with the same and do well without a handout.

But that being said, I do support race based AA because URMs as a group are incapable of doing well on objective standards. One cant support AA without accepting that the boost they are given is because they cant or wont compete on the same standards as others. If we eliminated AA tomorrow, URM representation in higher educattion would drop like a stone and the only small number of URMs that earned their way regardless of their skin color wold be left.

Wow, an AA proponent that is honest with the facts.

How do you propose we wean people off of AA? How long should people's civil rights be suspended for this cause?

I think of it as a band aid, you only hurt yourself more if you tear it off slowly.

What the pro-AA people need to understand is not only is AA discriminatory against whites, its ALSO DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST ASIANS

Nobody cares about whites, but the liberal left should realize that its not only whites being victimized.

Does the match list also give URM an advantage? I know statistically most URM become primary care physicians, not sure if its because thats their interests or they can't get a good specialty match. Anyone know,how the matches work for URM?


PS, i am just curious how you interpret these results. So it says basically that rich blacks do poor, while poor whites do better. Who knows if this just means they are stupid, don't work hard, or there is some catch with these results.

here's the article that the OP was referring to:

http://MSNBC.com/news/902428.asp?0cv=CB10

Ryo-Ohki, aren't you making a good case against your idea that affirmative action should shift to adjust soley for economic disadvantage? The interactions between poverty, racial composition and achievement are complex, to say the least.

We know that blind resumes submitted with an african-american sounding name are one-third less likely to result in an interview offer than the exact same resume with an anglo sounding name. And this is in the context of aggressive affirmative action, with incentives in place to encourage diversity in the work place. Of course, this flagrant, measurable, reproducible measurement of corporate racism has nothing at all to do with economic factors, simply with racial ones. African americans can produce for you an entire lifetime of experiences such as these, regardless of their economic backgrounds.

You're exactly right that lower expectations lead to lower results. African americans face lower expectations from day one in this society of ours - and it is demonstrated in lower levels of achievement. Maybe more blacks are poor, score lower, get crappier jobs, are less likely to be promoted, so forth because of racism. It's not the poverty we need to adjust for - that is simply a reflection of the root problem: the ongoing racism.

And I don't buy this idea that others are being discriminated against when adcoms factor in racial background in their decisions. Medical school is not a contest, or a prize awarded for highest scores and gpa's. It never has been. You are not 'owed' a spot for achieving some baseline level of academic achievement. Academic competency is one standard which adcoms look at. Many, many other factors are then weighed in the decision process. Recognition of personal achievement in a context of adversity is long tradition in medical school acceptence. Poverty is one type of adveristy. Overcoming racisim in America in yet another, competely separate one.

Yes, because those racist adcom officers and deans like President Bollinger are just waiting to discriminate against blacks. It's not like they're bending over backwards right now to admit $80,000/21.9 MCAT URMs over $30,000/25.6 MCAT non-URMs.

When someone tells me that Affirmative Action is about helping the poor black kid with limited educational opportunities, I always them why don't they use economic status instead of race in admissions if they truly believe Affirmative Action is about helping poor people.

I do not support disadvantaged status. I believe all criteria for admissions should be defined, open, achievable, measurable and relevant. Race definitely does not meet these criteria. Neither does legacy or disadvantaged status.

Before I begin my two cents, I want to establish some credibility. I am Asian and I grew up with two Korean immigrants so there was much social and cultural barriers between myself and many of my white counterparts. That being said...

I do believe that this brief had some valid points. I understand how there is much hesitancy for the URM to seek medical advice from Caucasians when in comparison to someone of their own race because a few times when they needed to, my parents did NOT seek the advice of a health care professional. They never explicitly said why, but I think a good part of it is due to the reasoning of language barriers (my parents still struggle with English).

However, common sense would tell me that if my health was knowingly in jeopardy and I knew I needed a professional opinion, I honestly would not care if the physician is Hispanic or Caucasian. Why? Because I trust in the standard and discernment of the ADCOM of whichever med school allows that student to be admitted into their med school. I trust in the system to make the best decision and keep the future patients of this M.D. in mind while they formulate what kind of a physician this hopeful will be.

I don't neccessarily agree with their argument that the URM will serve the underserved areas; I really do believe it depends on the heart of that person. Hopefully the aforesaid mentioned ADCOM will make the wisest decision on choosing the physician who is not in this hellish road to med school for money but because he/she truly does have a desire to help people and is morally sound to have the capacity to sacrfice money for the sake of helping someone in need. I don't believe that race determines how much of a miser you are or aren't; a Caucasian physican can be more truly interested in serving the underserved area while an African physican can only be on this process to make money.

I do agree however that there is much hesitancy for the URM to apply for the med school process; there is a societal stigma between certain races and their intelligence (or lack thereof). While this is more of an abstract ideal it is still a mental obstacle that can keep a person with excellent potential to be an amazing physican but because of this stigma, I don't believe we'll ever find out.

I think the idea of AA and of this board is like putting a band-aid on a deep knife wound. It seems as though they are wanting to piece together only the surface of the problem but not going to the source of it. There is the undeniable fact that in our public education system the difference of the overal quality between a wealthier neighboorhood (e.g. majority being Caucasian) and a lower income neighboorhood (e.g. URM). So, why not start there? Why not provide comparable educational, recreational, and other opporunities the same for the both schools at the opposite ends of the spectrum? Maybe it's due to naivete but I believe this would not only greatly reduce (not neccessarily eliminate) the educational schisms between the differing groups but this would allow the admissions playing field to be even more leveled....and hopefully diminish the need for programs such as AA.

Originally posted by JamesTopes

But that being said, I do support race based AA because URMs as a group are incapable of doing well on objective standards. One cant support AA without accepting that the boost they are given is because they cant or wont compete on the same standards as others. If we eliminated AA tomorrow, URM representation in higher educattion would drop like a stone and the only small number of URMs that earned their way regardless of their skin color wold be left.

Click to expand...

"incapable of doing well"? I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude, but this is extremely offensive. A serious drawback of AA is that it implies that URMs have to have the rules bent for them in order to achieve, which I believe is demeaning and condescending.

I don't wish to get into an argument of the broader merits/demerits of AA (although I probably just have), but I think that many white proponents of AA are implicitly arrogant in their notion that minorities need special considerations to achieve as their equals.

As for your second point, that URM representation would "drop like a stone" without AA, I don't think that is entirely true. In CA and TX, I believe the experience was that it dropped at first but then over a few years rose approximately to AA levels. These systems used socioeconomic information to proxy for race.

I was foolish enough to participate in an AA thread when it looks like most reasonable posters on this forum have long since given up any hope of having quality discussions on this matter.

If you are an opponent of AA, you should probably realize something:

AA is not going away anytime soon. Deal with it. Yeah, there may be rulings here and there that prohibit AA to some degree, but medical schools will always give preference to groups that are underrepresented in order to create a more diverse student body.....and who is going to do anything about it? Remember that med school admission is based on much more than gpa/mcat. Therefore, anytime a medical school is challenged in court on a case by case basis they could simply say they were impressed by a particular applicant's interview, lors, life experiences, etc....

I was just reading MSNBC's article on Gratz...

Gratz was so confident that she'd make the cut at Michigan that she applied to no other colleges. The wait-list letter was the first bad sign. Then in April of her senior year, after weeks of running home from school to check the mail, came the thin letter of rejection. Through her tears, Gratz uttered her now-famous rejoinder: "Dad, can we sue?"

Click to expand...

Ok. Even the most qualified medical school applicant applies to more than one school. And I know that everyone at my high school applied to more than one school, on average between 6 and 12. And after spending a semester or year at Dearborn, couldn't she transfer to UMich? Did she ever try? What about Dearborn prevented her from pursuing the means to become a forensic scientist? Why not take a year off, then apply again?

"I can't tell you exactly how my life would be different, because I wasn't given the opportunity," says Gratz, who left Michigan two years ago and now lives in the rugged hills north of San Diego. She is not the forensic scientist she thought she'd become; she is a software trainer for a vending machine company called SupplyPro.

Click to expand...

Never given the opportunity? There are thousands of colleges in the US, any of which she could have applied to. If she truly wanted to become a forensic scienctist, she would be content attending Parplunket community college, if it helped her reach her goal. I'm sure UMich isn't the only school that potential forensic scientists can attend. I have two friends who have the same goal, one attending my college, and the other at UNC. Unhappy being a software trainer? Go back to school. Abandoning your dreams because of one rejection doesn't say much about your character... perhaps the adcom sensed that.

Originally posted by meanderson
AA is not going away anytime soon. Deal with it. Yeah, there may be rulings here and there that prohibit AA to some degree, but medical schools will always give preference to groups that are underrepresented in order to create a more diverse student body.....and who is going to do anything about it?

Click to expand...

What a freaking cop out excuse. I guess that during the civil rights movement, blacks should have just given up and said "the white man is just too mean to us, we should just call it quits"

slickness,

Even if that data is true, its irrelevant.

Using racial discrimination to achieve ANY MEANS is wrong. It doesnt matter what the outcome is, the only thing that matters is the PROCESS.

Medical school is unique in that it is like the mafia. Once you're let in, they don't let you out. Drop out rates for URMs are a tad higher, but I don't think the rates are statically significant. However, *pass rates* for step I, etc are significantly lower for URMs.

In other areas, like undergrad, the drop out rates for URMs are significantly higher. Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), if you control for SAT/GPA, URMs and non-URMs with similar stats drop out at similar rates. Shocking, eh?

I agree, the whole "if you don't like it, you can suck my d*** because nothing is going to change" argument is a freaking cop out excuse. It seems like an argument someone would make when he can't defend his position.

<b>Meanderson, from whom did taxpayers benefit more? Bakke or Chavis? </b>

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Because only black doctors should serve black patients, right?

It is NOT a good thing to give underqualified doctors to people. You pro-AA guys have already tried to make this point.

Click to expand...

Black doctors must pass the same board exams as white doctors. Given this fact, I don't see how you can argue that any doctor who has done so is "underqualified."
I have no data to back this up, but I would be willing to bet that a greater percentage of white doctors have had malpractice suits filed against them than black or minority doctors. My guess is that every doctor is competent enough to make the "right" medical decisions but it comes down to qualities that are not taught in medical school or elsewhere but instead come from one's background (regardless of race/ethnicity) that determine whether the doctor makes the most discriminating decision.

Slickness, your quote said that applications had declined--did it say anything about matriculants? The example I was thinking of (about URM matriculant levels returning eventually) was for either law school or undergrad, so med school might be different. I heard this on NPR, although I had read similar observations elsewhere. I know both sides manipulate the statistics ...

I also agree with LJoo's point that we need to focus on preparing all children, no matter their race or economic status, for higher education. The real work needs to be done at the primary and secondary educational levels.

Yes, as hard it is to imagine; there are differences between people who pass the boards. And yes, a doctor who has passed the boards can be less qualified then another doctor who has passed the boards.

By your twisted logic, there is no difference between Chief Justice Rehnquist and Lionel Hutz because they have both passed the bar exam.

Just remember, Dr. Nick passed the boards too. So you can take your <b>board certified</b> Surgeries For Only $129.95 Dr. Nick. I?ll take the more qualified Dr. Hibbert any day of the week.

I am in favor of affirmative action but not at level of admissions decisions but more at the level of encouraging more URMs to just apply. If they have what it takes then they get in like their non-URM counterpart. If they don't then they get a thin letter telling them 'no' like other non-URMs. Anybody gonna show me love on this idea? Peace.

while many of you may disagree, this is my opinion. though we do have affirmative action, we only have 2% latinos or 3% african americans in medical school. take a look at the stats people; you act as if though the color of your skin changes something. It does not, not overall. I have been to conferences, where school representatives explicity say, "Because you are black does not mean you will get in, but it will be considered in terms of scores." Yes schools try to recruit minorities, by showing more support, but there are standards that have to be held too. yes, lot of minorities do get rides through medical school, but they proven themselves. I knew a girl who got a full ride to a prestigious college, but she was an orphan, worked 3 jobs, maintained a 3.5 GPA, and had time for great internships. Was it based on the fact she was a minority. No, more on the fact that she rose to an exceptional level of achievement given her circumstance and a real, profound desire. Most of us, yes, we study, do the required activities of pre-med students, but how far have we taken the opportunities given to us to truly achieve our potential is something else. That is what medical school looks for. Though I struggled to pay for school, I know I could have done far more of breaking out of the box. There is still a disparity in terms of minorities admitted and the selection involved;these programs are mere stepping stones to address such issues.

Originally posted by VienneseWaltz
"incapable of doing well"? I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude, but this is extremely offensive. A serious drawback of AA is that it implies that URMs have to have the rules bent for them in order to achieve, which I believe is demeaning and condescending.

I don't wish to get into an argument of the broader merits/demerits of AA (although I probably just have), but I think that many white proponents of AA are implicitly arrogant in their notion that minorities need special considerations to achieve as their equals.

As for your second point, that URM representation would "drop like a stone" without AA, I don't think that is entirely true. In CA and TX, I believe the experience was that it dropped at first but then over a few years rose approximately to AA levels. These systems used socioeconomic information to proxy for race.

Click to expand...

Youre right its incredibly offensive but accepting AA in its current form of providing substantial boosts equivalent to or exceeding some objective numerical standard suggests that URMs are not willing or are unable to meet these standards on their own. I apologize for the poor choice of words in using "incapable" as it smacks of something out of the Bell Curve and some freakish genetic argument that some people have tried to use to explain why theres such a disparity in scores between different races.

I for one feel that numerical stats are nothing more than ways for selective schools to screen people down to a a more managable number and studies have shown that there's little correlation with how well one performs as a physician based on GPA/MCAT scores. They are not really indicative of a person being more qualified or more intelligent but rather who is more deserving of an opportunity. Higher scores just means that people will be considered on their other nonacademic merits but scores that are acceptable for URMs would result in a ORM or Caucassion person to be screened out for further consideration.

As for my second point that URM representation would drop significantly if they stopped giving this substantial boost was based on UMich case where they showed that only 5 African Americans in the current entering Umich law class met the standard of the screen they used to weed people out. They could lower the standards for everyone as Scalia suggested but that would be unpalatable for any selective institution. Furthermore, when California abolished AA back in the mid 90s the numbers of Asians went through the roof at Berkley and UCLA when it was strictly SAT/GPA based. They did start using socioeconomic factors as you raised that resulted in more URMs but theres a a whole scandal now that admissions officers have been using these subjective factors to give bigger boosts to poor URMs than other poor whites and Asians.

I used to hate AA with a passion because if you belived in the words of MLK in judigng people on the content of their character rather than their skin color this system we have in place to increase diversity goes everything against those words. But Ive come to realize its more about the spirit of inclusion and the way it is now URMs need a big advantage if you want to have any meaningful diversity in higher education. Reasonable people can have differing opinions on the value of diversity but one cant deny that the AA now is racist, discriminatory, pretty unfair to ORMs and Caucasions, and blatantly unconstitutional. Its unfortunate that people are interested in a All or Nothing approach when its comes to AA.

Why not have voluntary Affirmative Action? If you truly believe the goal is that great, you will happily sacrifice yourself for the common good.

An applicant can check off ONE choice:

--URM = add 5 points to your MCAT
--Supports AA = 0 points
--Against AA = add 5 points to your MCAT


Your glorious martyrdom will be noted.

against AA = add 5 pts to MCAT? that makes ABSOLUTELY no sense

watch out! pre-allo is being taken over by the everyone forum.

0.02

I am whiter than snow, son of an MD and PhD, grew up in upper-middle class dream.

Private schools, college all paid for.

Didn't get into my mother's med school!

I support AA.

By the way, has anyone considered what the armed forces have contributed to the AA flap at the Supreme? They recognize that they need racial diversity in the officer corps. Without that diversity, they fear that the officers will lack any credibility, and that discipline will suffer.

They do not worry that white officers won't make the cut.

They do not worry that black officers will be viewed as less qualified.

They believe that AA ensures a more harmonious enviroment. They are not known for being very liberal,

Originally posted by Slickness
Irrelevant? The article from the AAMC themselves describes the relevance of AA. Obviously AA must be a very important and "relevant" program if even the AAMC supports it. By saying it is "irrelevant" is saying the AAMC does not know what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

No you misunderstood me.

I'm saying that AA is definitely racial discrimination. Outcomes dont prove/disprove discrimination; process does.

Now, you could argue that AA is needed EVEN THOUGH it is racial discrimination. But I'm sick of hearing about how its not. Lets call it for what it is and then debate on whether or not its justified. I keep hearing liberals harp that its not racial discrimination just because it doesnt rise to the level of injustice that blacks faced.

I personally dont think that racial discrimination of any kind is ever justified.

Originally posted by enamine
Black doctors must pass the same board exams as white doctors. Given this fact, I don't see how you can argue that any doctor who has done so is "underqualified."
I have no data to back this up, but I would be willing to bet that a greater percentage of white doctors have had malpractice suits filed against them than black or minority doctors. My guess is that every doctor is competent enough to make the "right" medical decisions but it comes down to qualities that are not taught in medical school or elsewhere but instead come from one's background (regardless of race/ethnicity) that determine whether the doctor makes the most discriminating decision.

Click to expand...

The fact of whether they are qualified or not is IRRELEVANT. The only facts that matter are:

1) When you give extra credit for race, then you are also excluding people partially because of race; this constitutes de facto racial discrimination because there are not unlimited seats in med school

2) Even if all URMs get perfect board scores and go on to become heads of clinical departments, there was still racial discrimination vis a vis AA which was an injustice to other applicants. Whether URMs are ultimately successful or not in medicine DOES NOTHING to decrease or mitigate fact #1.

The truth of the matter is that if you are a highly qualified asian or white applicant you will be sucessful in gaining admissions to a good medical school. The argument that AA hurts asians and whites is sort of weak. It's more like the marginal asians and whites didn't get in and now they are complaining.

Well maybe these marginal non-urm should apply to an HBCU and maybe they can benefit from schools like Howard and Meharry trying to "diversify" their classes. (I'm joking of course).

Yeah, those marginal whites and asians aren't worth the crap you spit on. So what if they get hurt? So what if their constitutional rights are violated. So what if they are poor/lower middle class and have to compete with rich blacks. Screw them. As long as it doesn't affect me, then everything is ok.

Ryo-Ohki,

Oh how I miss your wit and stubborness.

The fact is that the white man has been and still is the holder of most of the world's wealth and power. Why do you think that so many asians and East Indians go into medicine?

Answer: It's because in the corporate world no matter how qualified an Asian dude is with his Ivy league degrees and all he'll still be passed over for CFO or CEO to a white dude. So Asians figure at least in medicine their skills will get them further. THe world is still run by the old white boys club. So all asians out there should instead of siding with the whites should be on the side of the URMs because white dudes don't give a fu#k about you or how hard you work! THat is why we still need AA. AA might not help asians for schools but it could help them in the workplace.

one thing to consider in all of these arguments is that rich URM's and poor whites/Asians make up a VERY small portion of med school classes (as do poor URM's). so you are dealing with a pretty small sample size, which will always lead to errors in intepreting the data.

one argument I think is kind of lame that gets thrown around on here is that "URM's need URM doctors b/c they feel more comfortable with them." OK, I understand that slavery was a horrible atrocity and that it is often hard for minorities to get their health care needs met. But if I, as a white female, were to say that I would prefer to have a white female gynecologist, I'd probably be thought of as a racist in spite of the fact that I was never a rich person whose ancestors abused minorities. total double standard.. but just trying to play devil's advocate, I wouldn't be upset to have a black, Hispanic, or Asian gynecologist for the record (though like most women I would prefer a female).

Originally posted by irlandesa
one thing to consider in all of these arguments is that rich URM's and poor whites/Asians make up a VERY small portion of med school classes (as do poor URM's). so you are dealing with a pretty small sample size, which will always lead to errors in intepreting the data.

one argument I think is kind of lame that gets thrown around on here is that "URM's need URM doctors b/c they feel more comfortable with them." OK, I understand that slavery was a horrible atrocity and that it is often hard for minorities to get their health care needs met. But if I, as a white female, were to say that I would prefer to have a white female gynecologist, I'd probably be thought of as a racist in spite of the fact that I was never a rich person whose ancestors abused minorities. total double standard.. but just trying to play devil's advocate, I wouldn't be upset to have a black, Hispanic, or Asian gynecologist for the record (though like most women I would prefer a female).

Click to expand...

Read about the Tuskegee Syphylis experiments done on black people and maybe you'll understand why blacks might be affraid white doctors will do bad things to them. Until then you'll never understand!

Originally posted by medicine2006

Answer: It's because in the corporate world no matter how qualified an Asian dude is with his Ivy league degrees and all he'll still be passed over for CFO or CEO to a white dude. So Asians figure at least in medicine their skills will get them further. THe world is still run by the old white boys club. So all asians out there should instead of siding with the whites should be on the side of the URMs because white dudes don't give a fu#k about you or how hard you work! THat is why we still need AA. AA might not help asians for schools but it could help them in the workplace.

Click to expand...

why must we take sides? this is not junior high.. Asians seem to me to be doing just fine in medicine, and most of the Asians in my class (about 30% of the class, BTW) are there b/c they want to be doctors, not b/c the white men refused to acknowledge them in the business world. and whether we like it or not, medicine is still run by the old boys club too, and all of us who are not white males have to find coping mechs other than being pi$$ed off.

Why are you putting me down, friend? I agree with you! The white man has his legacy points, so we should have our Affirmative Action points. The white man has his good ol' boy club, so we should have our bad ol' boy club. The white man put us down for 200 years, so we should put them down for 200 years!