3.3 and higher GPA's

[acrobat]

---

Members do not see this ad.

and the lower courts and the supreme court and our entire common law justice system works off of precedents, such as cases like this one. the point is that its not the government establishing this preference for URM applicants (as in Grutter v. Bollinger at UMich, a public institution which on its own accord, gave preference to blacks and latinos). In medical school admissions, it is the AAMC which dictates which minorities are underrepresented, and that there is a clear and present need for members of the URM community to be trained as doctors to serve these communities. I would imagine that a slightly conservative court (what we have know) we see that the preference for URMs is clearly meant for the public good as ORMs such as whites and asians usually fail to serve URM communities. As a result, there is a public need for URMs to have a slight advantage when it comes to med school admission. But frankly, I don't see too many white people being kept out of med school so I, as a white male, really don't take issue with this like you do.

"the lower courts and the supreme court and our entire common law justice system works off of precedents"

Yes and those precedents can be overturned if they were originally decided incorrectly. Justices also look at what the constitutional says and the rational for the when it was made. There have been many cases where a precdent was overturned if it was decided incorrectly - Dred Scott is the easy example. Roberts is a Rehnquist clone. Alito is pretty clear at leaast at some time in the past he was against a.a. That is five justices no matter how you count it. Unless Kennedy switches sides but he's been pretty clear where he stands...then again this is Kennedy we're talking about he puts his finger in the wind a lot.

A 9-0 case represents a pretty solid precedent. Also a 5-4 case like the 2003 Michigan case is not very much of a precedent and jsut means the case is hotly contested.

 

[DoctorPardi]

and the lower courts and the supreme court and our entire common law justice system works off of precedents, such as cases like this one. the point is that its not the government establishing this preference for URM applicants (as in Grutter v. Bollinger at UMich, a public institution which on its own accord, gave preference to blacks and latinos). In medical school admissions, it is the AAMC which dictates which minorities are underrepresented, and that there is a clear and present need for members of the URM community to be trained as doctors to serve these communities. I would imagine that a slightly conservative court (what we have know) we see that the preference for URMs is clearly meant for the public good as ORMs such as whites and asians usually fail to serve URM communities. As a result, there is a public need for URMs to have a slight advantage when it comes to med school admission. But frankly, I don't see too many white people being kept out of med school so I, as a white male, really don't take issue with this like you do.

I agree with this whole heartedly and it barely even discusses the debate of URM's being disadvantaged.

1) There are communities that do not have the physicians they need to provide them with adequate healthcare. The AAMC knows that it is much more likely that a black man will choose to serve a black community than it is likely an asian man will serve that same community.

2) URM's often don't have the same access to educational tools that I have, or most whites or asians have. It is the case that drop out rates would be higher for "minority" schools and the rates for those who go to college would be lower too. Is it because minorities are genetically less intelligent across the board than white people? Clearly I think this is not the case and everyone should agree with me. So this speaks to a deficiency in our society not to one in minorities.

So in short the AAMC may provide some preference or some bonus to URM's for the betterment of their communities and because it was likely more difficult for them to get a 3.5 than it would be for me.

 

[acrobat]

I agree with this whole heartedly and it barely even discusses the debate of URM's being disadvantaged.

1) There are communities that do not have the physicians they need to provide them with adequate healthcare. The AAMC knows that it is much more likely that a black man will choose to serve a black community than it is likely an asian man will serve that same community.

2) URM's often don't have the same access to educational tools that I have, or most whites or asians have. It is the case that drop out rates would be higher for "minority" schools and the rates for those who go to college would be lower too. Is it because minorities are genetically less intelligent across the board than white people? Clearly I think this is not the case and everyone should agree with me. So this speaks to a deficiency in our society not to one in minorities.

So in short the AAMC may provide some preference or some bonus to URM's for the betterment of their communities and because it was likely more difficult for them to get a 3.5 than it would be for me.

"URM's often don't have the same access to educational tools that I have, or most whites or asians have."

Why's that? Maybe some don't but certaily not all. This has nothing to do with economic circumstances.

 

[DoctorPardi]

"URM's often don't have the same access to educational tools that I have, or most whites or asians have."

Why's that?

Because schools that serve minorities are often ill prepared to educate individuals to go on to college.

Maybe I am just stereotyping minorities as those who receive educational disadvantages that I did not have to face. In my high school graduating class there were about 10 african-americans out of over 200 mostly white students. Note this is a public school. So I don't feel those 10 african-american students were disadvantaged at least, not in the school that they went too.

My information may be somewhat personal and inexact on this topic. But go look up statistics for inner city schools, and tell me if they drop out rate isn't higher than the white suburbian schools. Look up the rates on gang violence in the city vs suburbs. Look up the rates on how many students from inner city schools go to college vs suburbian schools.

You could say, "well it seems black people, or inner city people at least, are more prone to violence, it isn't my fault they are killing each other." And it may very well not be your fault, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it. Also is it the case that black people are genetically coded for gangs? No I just don't see that being possible. So then why is it that inner city gangs happen so often and suburban gangs occur so rarely?

Like I said it is a societal defect not a defect of the individual.

 

[acrobat]

"Because schools that serve minorities are often ill prepared to educate individuals to go on to college. "

What about Whites or Asians that attend those same schools. They can not qualify for URM status.

"But go look up statistics for inner city schools, and tell me if they drop out rate isn't higher than the white suburbian schools."

Yep the drop rates for blacks is horrific, but we're individuals. What the 280 other million people are doing in this country is of no concern of me. People should be treated as individuals.

Because schools that serve minorities are often ill prepared to educate individuals to go on to college.

Maybe I am just stereotyping minorities as those who receive educational disadvantages that I did not have to face. In my high school graduating class there were about 10 african-americans out of over 200 mostly white students. Note this is a public school. So I don't feel those 10 african-american students were disadvantaged at least, not in the school that they went too.

My information may be somewhat personal and inexact on this topic. But go look up statistics for inner city schools, and tell me if they drop out rate isn't higher than the white suburbian schools. Look up the rates on gang violence in the city vs suburbs. Look up the rates on how many students from inner city schools go to college vs suburbian schools.

You could say, "well it seems black people, or inner city people at least, are more prone to violence, it isn't my fault they are killing each other." And it may very well not be your fault, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it. Also is it the case that black people are genetically coded for gangs? No I just don't see that being possible. So then why is it that inner city gangs happen so often and suburban gangs occur so rarely?

Like I said it is a societal defect not a defect of the individual.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

"Because schools that serve minorities are often ill prepared to educate individuals to go on to college. "

What about Whites or Asians that attend those same schools. They can not qualify for URM status.

"But go look up statistics for inner city schools, and tell me if they drop out rate isn't higher than the white suburbian schools."

Yep the drop rates for blacks is horrific, but we're individuals. What the 280 other million people are doing in this country is of no concern of me. People should be treated as individuals.

they can claim disadvantaged status on the AMCAS, which probably puts them in the same position as URMs in many adcom's eyes.

Everyone is treated as an individual, this is mostly a merit-based process.

 

[Rafa]

Yep the drop rates for blacks is horrific, but we're individuals. What the 280 other million people are doing in this country is of no concern of me. People should be treated as individuals.

Nope. You live in a country with 280 million other people. You pay taxes. You are part of a society that only exists through cooperation of the vast majority of people within said society. If you'd like to be treated as an individual, you're going to have to move to a country without laws.

 

[acrobat]

Nope. You live in a country with 280 million other people. You pay taxes. You are part of a society that only exists through cooperation of the vast majority of people within said society. If you'd like to be treated as an individual, you're going to have to move to a country without laws.

Rafa- We're all entitled to equal protection under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"they can claim disadvantaged status on the AMCAS, which probably puts them in the same position as URMs in many adcom's eyes."

Quantum- minorites could also claim that status. We don't need don't need something specific for each skin color there is already a place to claim disadvantaged status

"Everyone is treated as an individual, this is mostly a merit-based process."

If that is so why can hispanics and blacks qualify for special status?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Quantum- minorites could also claim that. We don't need don't need something specific for each skin color.

this is my last comment on this since I really dont like discussing my personal opinions on this issue, but

when it comes down to it, its not about skin color, its about training a group of physicians who will end up serving the entire community, so that in the future there will be no underserved communities as there are now.

 

[DoctorPardi]

"Everyone is treated as an individual, this is mostly a merit-based process."

If that is so why can hispanics and blacks qualify for special status?

Because it is likely, that beyond their own control they were disadvantaged more so than "most" white or asian people would be.

For example, I have lived my entire life in the suburbs. I have never been peer pressured into taking cocaine, for that matter I've never even seen cocaine. The kind of hardships I've gone through in my life don't compare to what many minorities go through. I've never not gotten a job because I was white.

There are numerous objective situations where "most" white people would have an advantage over "most" minorities.

 

[acrobat]

"Because it is likely, that beyond their own control they were disadvantaged more so than "most" white or asian people would be.


That's certainly a correct statement.


But, if they had someone had these problems they could fill in the disadvantaged spot. Certainly not ALL blacks have these been in bad situations. Certainly not all whites have not been exposed. Certainly not all Asians grow up in the suburbs either. We're individuals who are entitled to equal protection.

Because it is likely, that beyond their own control they were disadvantaged more so than "most" white or asian people would be.

For example, I have lived my entire life in the suburbs. I have never been peer pressured into taking cocaine, for that matter I've never even seen cocaine. The kind of hardships I've gone through in my life don't compare to what many minorities go through. I've never not gotten a job because I was white.

There are numerous objective situations where "most" white people would have an advantage over "most" minorities.

 

[Rafa]

We're individuals who are entitled to equal protection.

I don't think you're living in the real world. 🙁 Hopefully you'll see more of it over time. Good luck.

 

[DoctorPardi]

"Because it is likely, that beyond their own control they were disadvantaged more so than "most" white or asian people would be.

So if they had someone had these problems they could fill in the disadvantaged spot. Certainly not ALL blacks have these been in bad situations. Certainly not all whites have not been exposed. Certainly not all Asians grow up in the suburbs either. We're individuals who are entitled to equal protection.

I think disadvantaged status should be an individual based thing. I just don't know how it would work. On the one hand it is hard to prove a white or asian kid was disadvantated (what do you, go to his neighborhood, ask his friends?), and on the other hand is it right to make a blanket statement that all blacks are disadvantaged so they need some help in getting in?

So there will never be a perfect situation. This way it is available to blacks/latinos and if they were truly disadvantaged then they should take it up with AAMC. If they weren't then they shouldn't. But that is their individual decision to use it or not.

I'm with quantenmechanic. I'm done for the night with this subject.

 

[acrobat]

Pardi says ---------" think disadvantaged status should be an individual based thing. I just don't know how it would work. On the one hand it is hard to prove a white or asian kid was disadvantated (what do you, go to his neighborhood, ask his friends?), and on the other hand is it right to make a blanket statement that all blacks are disadvantaged so they need some help in getting in? "

You do it the same way they do on the disadvantaged section that anyone can fill out. Income, parents education level, perhaps an essay explaining why you think you should qualify. This is clearly more fair then jsut awarding every black or Hispanic +5 points or starting Asians\Whites off with -5 points automatically.

I can't imagine practices like this will be allowed to continue much longer anyway after the current replacements on the SC. A lot of people say well two canidates being dead even then give the advantage the the minority. This is pointless to even ponder however since any school in their right mind is going to give that last spot to a minority over a equal Asian or White canidate even if affirmative action discrimination is overuled. Schools will even go beyond this and continue to find wiggle room to accept minorities because they "interviewed better" or whatever reason they can use. The point is minorites are always going to get the benefit of the doubt regardless of what the law says, but they would, however, be unable to justify anything over the top because they'd be called out on it and sued.

I think disadvantaged status should be an individual based thing. I just don't know how it would work. On the one hand it is hard to prove a white or asian kid was disadvantated (what do you, go to his neighborhood, ask his friends?), and on the other hand is it right to make a blanket statement that all blacks are disadvantaged so they need some help in getting in?

So there will never be a perfect situation. This way it is available to blacks/latinos and if they were truly disadvantaged then they should take it up with AAMC. If they weren't then they shouldn't. But that is their individual decision to use it or not.

I'm with quantenmechanic. I'm done for the night with this subject.

 

[relentless11]

So has anyone thought about if these people get any "wiggle" room, do they make good physicians when they come out? I would surmise that they do, and therefore I have no complaints if there is such "wiggle" room given to URM's.

Based on the stats provided by AAMC ( https://services.aamc.org/Publications/showfile.cfm?file=version42.pdf&prd_id=133&prv_id=154 ) the number of "URMs" such as hispanics, african americans, and native americans is significantly smaller than asians and whites. So hypothetically speaking, if this is evenly distributed among the ~125 med schools under AAMC, thats not a lot of people one is competing against. So whats the point of being concerned about such trivial things.

The grass is always greener on the otherside. But really if these people made at least decent physicians anyway, that would mean they weren't meant to get in? Just more proof that there's more to being a physician than just grades, MCAT scores and "race". As you can see, I'm more concerned about having good physicians rather than increasing the odds of me getting into med school. I'm confident that I will get in, when and where is the real question, but thats of course after my PhD😉.

 

[windzilla]

I have lost all respect for you as a human being.

In response to my informal usage of" irregardless", not to unravel the wordiness, (as doing so would be an illogicality), i just lik'm extra syllables.

Perhaps it should have been typed "1RR394RDL355", as that would be within the bounds of appropriate internet forum grammer.


Oh my goodness, im such an @@$

 

[acrobat]

Shush, windzilla is the decider

 

[Schaden Freud]

The disadvantaged minorities issue has been discussed to death, and it's clear that while our system is not perfect, it's the only reasonable alternative. To not allow members of underrepresented/potentially disadvantaged groups a boost in the admissions process would eliminate them from the profession altogether- certainly not a desirable outcome. On the other hand, a system which screens individual applicants for disadvantages would still be vulnerable to bias and would add a mountain of paperwork to an already heavily bureaucratic process.

 

[acrobat]

The disadvantaged minorities issue has been discussed to death, and it's clear that while our system is not perfect, it's the only reasonable alternative. To not allow members of underrepresented/potentially disadvantaged groups a boost in the admissions process would eliminate them from the profession altogether- certainly not a desirable outcome. On the other hand, a system which screens individual applicants for disadvantages would still be vulnerable to bias and would add a mountain of paperwork to an already heavily bureaucratic process.

"On the other hand, a system which screens individual applicants for disadvantages "

We already have a system that you can submit a request for disadvantaged request- we don’t need a new one. Once we eliminate the UPM status section that is based on skin color only, minorities who did not grow up in disadvantaged circumstances will no longer be able to abuse the system. Asian and White students will no longer be discriminated against. Enforcing the equal protection clause of the constitution will surely be done now that O'Connor has been replaced with Alito. Alito is the crucial 5th vote.