Affirmative Action and Med School Application

BOSSofCU · Mar 30, 2004

Originally posted by Gleevec

I fully support efforts to level the playing field, but in all honesty, the only field that needs to be levelled is that of socioeconomic status and concommitant loss of educational opportunities. And I cant help but get upset when people mention that URMs are different, because that implies that there is somehow something "wrong" with URMs, which I completely disagree with. Poverty is the real issue here, as that is the main source of social disadvantage, and its sad that this fact gets lost in this whole debate as it digresses into a racial mudsling.

Poverty is not the only issue. Gleevec, you seem to quite freely accuse people of racism, but you won't admit that it plays a role in shaping people's life paths. In the US an African American male has just under a one in three chance of spending time in in prison during the course of his life. This an incomprably higher incarceration rate than a demographic with (presumably) a similar economic status, namely African American females. This rate is also much higher than that for white males adjusted for family income. Since this discrepancy cannot be explained by poverty alone where do you think it comes from? I think it's from a damaging cultural perception of black males, and an economic/criminal justice infrastructure that (if not overtly, or even conciously) plays out in a racist manner.

Luther thanks for directing me to Khalenberg. I find that line of reasoning persuasive, and I agree that to the extent it can (which he may overestimate), socieoeconomic status should take primacy.

However, all that AA now means is that an admissions committee can take race into account. That's all: that they can consider it as one of many factors. Which has always been true for socieconomic status. If they do or not or even if they should is up to them, and a school defines itself in a way by choosing its class. (If the NYU Law student doesn't like the demographic of his class why did he go there? Why isn't he at Pitt or Cal State where the SES diversity is greater?) Given the inherent effects of race independent of socieoeconomic status (and the vital need for diversity of all kinds in an educational environment) I don't think allowing race to be considered as a factor (AA) is unreasonable.

JayMiranti · Mar 30, 2004

yeah, well race isnt exactly just another "factor" in the process now. AA isnt this thing that says, its OK to consider race, its not a taboo subject anymore, and we all recognize that different races bring differnt good and bads...

AA says.. take blacks, women, hispanics, etc... instead of the white male..always one particular group over another.

jtorres · Mar 30, 2004

this debate has been raging for the past few days. there is people here that are basically writing admissions essays. dont you all have a test to study for? MCAT? or better off, a life? chrisfeliciano simply asked a yes/no question. lets give it to him and move on. we cannot control what the adcoms policies are or how they think. if you get in then you get in. if you dont get in then try again or accept responsability for you failures and dont blame everybody else.

BigRedPingpong · Mar 30, 2004

BigRedPingpong · Mar 30, 2004

BigRedPingpong · Mar 30, 2004

Luthertaketwo · Mar 30, 2004

Quit spamming your *****ic crap.

patzan · Mar 30, 2004

Here's an interesting thought.

Suppose that URMs do not have the desire to become doctors to the extent that the white male does. For example, the female population in Utah is 50%, but the % women applying to the University of Utah has always been in the high 20s and 30s. The School of Medicine is in hot water with the legislature for allegedly accepting a higher proportion of women and minorities than others (i.e. white male). One year, the discrepancy of % women applying to % accepted was over 20%. The same is true for minorities. Utah, a very white state, gets very few minority applicants, but the % accepted is around the national average. The women in Utah are not that much more qualified than the men, nor are the minority groups. In Utah, the cultural emphasis is not necessarily on investing a decade on a career (i.e. medical school, etc.) but rather on raising families, thus accounting for the low # of women applying. Should we artificially raise the % of women being accepted merely because the population is 50% women (I hope that everyone realizes that this argument applies to race as well) or should it reflect the applicant pool.

It is my opinion that there is a need for diversity in higher education, but I don't believe that it should be at the cost of other highly qualified applicants. Instead, our focus should be on QUALIFYING URMs, not just letting them in "underqualified" as some argue. I think that they playing field should be leveled before they get to the application process. There is a need to help those who were disadvantaged in their upbringing, but as a college student, many white males, black women, and all kinds have to work during school, pay their own rent, etc. Our efforts should be on getting URMs into college (even through some form of AA), but after the undergraduate level, all should have an equal chance.

MoCookiess · Mar 30, 2004

Originally posted by patzan
Here's an interesting thought.

Suppose that URMs do not have the desire to become doctors to the extent that the white male does. For example, the female population in Utah is 50%, but the % women applying to the University of Utah has always been in the high 20s and 30s. The School of Medicine is in hot water with the legislature for allegedly accepting a higher proportion of women and minorities than others (i.e. white male). One year, the discrepancy of % women applying to % accepted was over 20%. The same is true for minorities. Utah, a very white state, gets very few minority applicants, but the % accepted is around the national average. The women in Utah are not that much more qualified than the men, nor are the minority groups. In Utah, the cultural emphasis is not necessarily on investing a decade on a career (i.e. medical school, etc.) but rather on raising families, thus accounting for the low # of women applying. Should we artificially raise the % of women being accepted merely because the population is 50% women (I hope that everyone realizes that this argument applies to race as well) or should it reflect the applicant pool.

It is my opinion that there is a need for diversity in higher education, but I don't believe that it should be at the cost of other highly qualified applicants. Instead, our focus should be on QUALIFYING URMs, not just letting them in "underqualified" as some argue. I think that they playing field should be leveled before they get to the application process. There is a need to help those who were disadvantaged in their upbringing, but as a college student, many white males, black women, and all kinds have to work during school, pay their own rent, etc. Our efforts should be on getting URMs into college (even through some form of AA), but after the undergraduate level, all should have an equal chance.

An excellent post. :hardy:

Have a great day

Gleevec · Mar 30, 2004

Originally posted by BOSSofCU
Poverty is not the only issue. Gleevec, you seem to quite freely accuse people of racism, but you won't admit that it plays a role in shaping people's life paths. In the US an African American male has just under a one in three chance of spending time in in prison during the course of his life. This an incomprably higher incarceration rate than a demographic with (presumably) a similar economic status, namely African American females. This rate is also much higher than that for white males adjusted for family income. Since this discrepancy cannot be explained by poverty alone where do you think it comes from? I think it's from a damaging cultural perception of black males, and an economic/criminal justice infrastructure that (if not overtly, or even conciously) plays out in a racist manner.

Luther thanks for directing me to Khalenberg. I find that line of reasoning persuasive, and I agree that to the extent it can (which he may overestimate), socieoeconomic status should take primacy.

However, all that AA now means is that an admissions committee can take race into account. That's all: that they can consider it as one of many factors. Which has always been true for socieconomic status. If they do or not or even if they should is up to them, and a school defines itself in a way by choosing its class. (If the NYU Law student doesn't like the demographic of his class why did he go there? Why isn't he at Pitt or Cal State where the SES diversity is greater?) Given the inherent effects of race independent of socieoeconomic status (and the vital need for diversity of all kinds in an educational environment) I don't think allowing race to be considered as a factor (AA) is unreasonable.

Please stop blurring the lines between issues, it only serves to show the weakness of your argument. Affirmative action as it is wouldn't help these incarcerated individuals, because schools tend to select middle and upper class URMs-- the group least likely to commit these crimes anyway. Furthermore, crime is correlated to poverty-- otherwise why is it that the poorest neighborhoods and individuals have/commit the highest rates of crime. I dont for a second believe that URMs are inherently more violent, but rather, it is endemic poverty and a lack of opportunity that induces some people down the wrong path.

The problem with incarceration and racial trends does have to do with racism, however nothing affirmative action can do can fix that. This is a tragedy, true, but it is a tragedy of the justice system and people's hearts. Nothing about increasing the number of URMs in medical school can fix that, because it is the poverty that leads to the crime, not the color of one's skin. The kinds of people that make bad jurors and prosecute based on race, resulting in the racial bias seen, won't be affected at all by an increase in the number of URMs in medical school. And there is no good evidence that such people would change their opinions about that. In fact, oftentimes the most racist people are poor non-URMs, who feel that AA is basically a handout. So there is no way you can positively influence these individuals about other races if you are conducting it through a method that said individuals abhor for the most part.

The fact is, a majority of the implicit assumptions behind affirmative action are completely racist. I dont believe that all URMs are somehow inferior and thus need help, not at all. I believe that skin color is quite irrelevant to all aspects of intelligence. What I do understand is history has unfortunately caused certain groups to be disproportionately impoverished, leading to a loss of opportunity. This is the true illness here, poverty, because it traps individuals into a cycle of powerlessness and futility.

For the life of me, I cant understand how people are willing to assume that URMs are somehow inferior and are in need of AA. Its astonishing that the implicit racism in such a belief can go unnoticed. The fact is, its poverty, its the situation, that results in a loss of academic achievement. I refuse to believe that someone people of different colored skin are somehow intellectually inferior to people of other colored skin, and frankly, there is nothing anyone on this thread can do to influence my opinion on that. I know too many people of too many colors way too well, and seeing what I have seen, I could never make a racial generalization about intelligence. It just seems to immoral to do that, at least to me.

BigRedPingpong · Mar 30, 2004

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
Quit spamming your *****ic crap.

Sticks and stones :laugh:

there_is_no · Mar 30, 2004

Originally posted by BigRedPingpong
Sticks and stones

lol, i definitely got a few laughs out of these posts from BigRedPingpong in what has become a very, very serious post. 😉 as far as, don't i have something better to do, this is probably true, so this is my last say in this forum (thank goodness some of yall are thinking), and i'm sure by no means is this going to quell any debate. but in all my arguments i've been assuming that the medical school application world looks something like this (granted, very very simplified):

1) there are many qualified white and asian men and women applicants out there with a wide range of scores.

2) there are many qualified URM men and women applicants out there, and they too have a wide range of scores, but the average stats for whatever reason (remember stats, not anything about the people themselves) are lower than group number 1. also this group tends to have many applicants who didn't necessarily come from the poorest of neighborhoods.

3) there are some qualified socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants out there of all sort of races and genders. the reason why there are so few of these applicants out there is because education is very vital to becoming a minimally qualified applicant for medical school and thus my assumption is that on average, (remember all of this is on average and do not exclude those wonderful individuals who overcome so much), this group has even lower stats than both groups 1 and 2.

okay, granted there are many people who don't fit any of these categories who might qualify for medical school, but i'm simplifying the universe here. the reason i do this, is from a policy perspective, how do you decide what groups to choose from? here is the size order of each of these groups:

group1 > group2 >> group3 (just my assumptions based on looking at statistics through AAMC and other medical admissions websites.

so then one option, let us be race and socioeconomically blind: the outcome is probably a predominance of group 1 and only the top applicants from group 2 (since their averages are lower) and very few applicants from group 3 (averages even lower). i don't think this is good because you lose a lot of diversity both racially and socioeconomically. your medical schools end up looking pretty uniform.

option two, use affirmative action. compared to above, you end up taking many individuals in group 2. i argued this is good because you increase diversity. others argue this is not fair because these individuals had a fair chance in life given socioeconomic status. but if this was really true, would you see such a statistical difference of the grades and MCAT scores of this group? i dunno, maybe you still would. but i can't really find a good reason, but i don't think just poverty is the only issue here.

option three, use just standards of class. you end up getting a few of the individuals in group 2, but definitely not that many. thus the racial diversity in doing this option decreases the number of URMs as previous standards of class studies have shown, see previous posts (and that's for colleges, not even the stricter standards of medical school). but the advantage is that you get more socioeconomically diverse students, but this comes at a great "effect" of decreasing the average statistics of admitted students, which some might say is decreasing the standards of admissions. that's okay by me, but maybe not everybody. in effect, this is why i'm saying to help this group, you have to improve education. that's maybe why all the URMs are coming from good schools/environments!

finally option four, use both affirmative action and class standards. what i would do and what i think is also currently done.

tired yet? lol, i am. you know, i admit that i could be all wrong about this and this is actually not what the medical school application world looks like, however this is the sense that i get from all the stats i've ever seen. and again, we've all met individual people and have had friends who are URM who don't need any advantage at all, because they're honestly stellar. however, what i'm saying is that as a group URMs on AVERAGE don't have the same stats. (and even then stats only tell PART of the story of ANYONE's life). still they mean at least a little something or no one would use them.

but remember just because i'm making a description of something is not to say that it is prescriptive. if i'm wrong about these assumptions that doesn't make me a capitalist pig who doesn't care about the poor or a racist pig who hates all races even my own. it just makes me uninformed if i've got it all wrong. and honestly, i wish i was, because if i was wrong that would mean that URMs are on average as a group all just as competitive as anyone else, or that the socioeconomically disadvantaged students as a group (not as individuals) can all definitely more than just hack it in medical school, but really really succeed.

to me that would be a better world, and i would in that case rather be wrong. but in my thinking, sadly, i don't think that's how the world is, and so sadly we need socioeconomic and racial affirmative action. because change requires not only structural changes in the way we raise people to attain their potential, but also at times when it's necessary giving some a lift up to say they can go past what their potential has been said to be based on statistics and other measures.

i really wish that i could agree with those of yall who dispute the need for affirmative action, because that would mean we would have reached the end of the era in which it was necessary, but i don't think that day has come... yet.

anyways, i honestly don't think i'll really get anywhere more with this discussion. i've said as much as i've been able to. sorry if i've hurt anyone's feelings in anything i've said or misrepresented anyone, it's not my end intent to make anyone mad, just represent one side of a difficult debate.

alright, well good luck in med school, wherever yall find yourselves and if yall don't, there are definitely more important things in life, though right now it might not seem like it.

adios. 😀

Luthertaketwo · Mar 30, 2004

"group1 > group2 >> group3 (just my assumptions based on looking at statistics through AAMC and other medical admissions websites."

First, don't assume very much if you aren't too bright.

According to your criteria, they would look closer to:

Group 1>> group 2 = group 3

Garbage in, garbage out.

MoCookiess · Mar 30, 2004

I too think I am going to take my leave of this particular thread. I realized today, that even if I had the most eloquent argument, no one's going to pat me on the back and say nice job or any such thing. Isn't that what we all want when we argue? For the most part, we've all put alot of thought into these posts, but I honestly don't think we're actually accomplishing anything new here, just restating our various positions and/or inflaming other posters. 😉 Plus, like another poster mentioned, we do have MCATs to study for, don't we? Unless we're already in med school, then we have a heck of a lot more to study. I don't think the thread will suffer horribly without me, but perhaps its time for the thread to die?

johnnyMD · Mar 30, 2004

i'm curious as to whether the top white/asian candidates have any opinion on aa. it seems like only the weaker candidates (Luthers of the world?) are obsessed with the unjust aspects of AA. Afterall, AA seems to weed out these borderline candidates out in favor of a 3.3 30 URP. Its not like they're not admitting the 3.8 35 white/asian

I dont see a major consequence if a few borderline 3.5 31 white/asian middle class applicants are passed over in favor of having more _____ (insert objective: diversity, social balance, sense of community, etc). the "3.3 Mexican guy" is more likely to go back to his "URM community" and contribute to a balanced society vs. some "Joe Luther 3.5" who's bound for a ho-hum family practice in a suburb of cleveland. Face it, its not like "Joe Luther 3.5" has the capacity to become an oustanding academic physician or bring a revolutionary change to medicine. for gods sake, theres only so many suburb family practice docs that a school can produce.

Bottom line:
AA gives the boot to a few mediocre 3.5 white/asians, who would probably make only modest contributions to medicine. At the very least, AA advances society by placing URM docs into URM communities. AA is of no consequence to talented applicants.

mr_big · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by johnnyMD
i'm curious as to whether the top white/asian candidates have any opinion on aa. it seems like only the weaker candidates (Luthers of the world?) are obsessed with the unjust aspects of AA. Afterall, AA seems to weed out these borderline candidates out in favor of a 3.3 30 URP. Its not like they're not admitting the 3.8 35 white/asians.

Speaking as an Ivy League WM med student who got pretty much everything he wanted out of the admissions process (interviews everywhere, lots of acceptances, substantial financial assistance and fellowships), I have to state emphatically that even successful whites and Asians at the top of the admissions heap have many problems with affirmative action as it's currently practiced. Our criticisms tend to be nuanced and well-reasoned, but you are in error if you think that people's objections to AA stem merely from self-interest or sour-grapes-type carping; more often than not, we form our opinions on policies like AA on the basis of principle. What bothers us (and I mean everybody here, across many ethnicities) is the risible corruption that has infected and ruined many aspects of AA.

By and large, those of us at the top medical schools tend to be a fairly progressive lot overall, but we want things to be done right and (in the case of AA) to help people who truly are downtrodden and underprivileged; but the system has just become too rife with abuses in recent years, to the extent that truly disadvantaged minorities are often ignored entirely while middle-class and rich URM's are admitted to the detriment of their less fortunate brethren *who often have similar academic credentials*-- including indigent URM's who don't have the social connections and elbow-rubbing opportunities available to richer URM's.

Again, as I mentioned before, we tend to be pretty progressive in our outlooks and we object to the egregious politics of privilege that grants an unjustified preference both to wealthy URM's and wealthy (usually Caucasian) legacy kids of alumni. And believe me, we're well aware of historical injustices that need correcting. I myself have been a longtime historian (written many articles and some to-be-published books), and because of that background I have no illusions about the degree to which certain ethnicities have been cheated out of the Enlightenment principles supposedly underlying the ethos of the United States. Africans were enslaved in England since Elizabethan times, and forced to labor in Europe and the US to fuel an Industrial Revolution for which they received not a cent of compensation, and in which (even after slavery's abolition) their descendants were constantly handed a raw deal. Native Americans were stripped of their lands, dishonored and further encroached upon in the midst of broken treaties. The US invaded and seized nearly *1/2* the territory of Mexico in the Mexican War of 1846-48 (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico-- all part of Mexico 150 years ago), then once again broke promises to Mexicans in the conquered territory by confiscating their lands and disparaging their language and culture in violation of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty. (This is why I?m especially sympathetic of Mexican descendants in these states who vigorously assert and maintain their Mexican culture?there?s a historical link there.) I can fully understand the historical grievances of these groups and the corrosive long-term economic effects on their well-being, and most of us in progressive communities up here would support earnest, effective efforts at aiding individuals in these communities who have been resultingly disadvantaged.

Problem is, AA as it's too often practiced now fails catastrophically to do this. We would support AA programs that, for example, undertook outreach efforts to impoverished African-American communities in Detroit or poor Latinos in Chicago, singling out promising candidates, assisting their education, and then perhaps including a degree of preference at admissions time for such disadvantaged individuals. We would even back AA policies that lent a boost to wealthier URM?s, so long as the schools exercise the discipline to ensure that beneficiaries of this largesse are also more inclined to practice in underserved minority communities upon completion of residency?the most commonly avowed justification for AA in the first place. Instead, far too many med schools fall back on the lazy crutch of ascribing an automatic preference to minorities regardless of their individual hardships and disparate experiences, with the inevitable result that disadvantaged URM's who most need help are virtually ignored while their already-privileged brethren are even further privileged. It?s just become a corrupt spoils system in too many places.

There have in recent years been efforts to rectify some of the more egregious abuses of the AA system. For a while, large numbers of applicants would identify themselves as ?Hispanic? on MMAR applications or scholarship competitions in spite of extremely tenuous connections to Hispanic ethnicity. They were often the wealthy, third- or fourth-generation descendants of immigrants from Latin American countries, even affluent heirs of magnates in Cuba or Argentina who aimed to send their kids to US schools, and they had Spanish surnames. Yet despite marking the ?Hispanic? box on a form, culturally they were practically Anglo; they would often speak only English, with their Spanish proficiency limited to ?Yo quiero Taco Bell.? And they?d obviously have little enthusiasm above and beyond the general med-school population for providing care to underserved Hispanic communities, since they largely did not identify with these communities themselves. Adcoms have been particularly outraged at this and are cracking down, such that if applicants claiming ?Hispanic? status are then compelled to admit that they speak no Spanish in an interview, such applicants are often summarily rejected or even blacklisted. (This was the reason for my portentous warning in another post, that if you claim Hispanic ethnicity on a form, make sure that you can fluently communicate in Spanish or Portuguese.)

Despite such occasional reforms, the abuses still continue. Once again, I think most of us around here harbor progressive sympathies and would support an AA scheme that was actually effective, that actually conferred assistance and a leg up to disadvantaged minority communities. For that matter, we?d also be approving of a system that took similar account of, for example, the Vietnamese siblings who arrived on a boat and graduated summa cum laude 15 years later, or the poor white coal miner?s kid from the Appalachians who overcame tremendous adversity and expresses determination to spend his career working in impoverished rural areas. Thus we tend to incline to a sort of ?loose AA? that?s nonetheless more flexible and responsive than the current brand. It would give consideration first to economic disadvantage and overcoming of this adversity, then provide a further preference to URM?s who had managed to surmount their own economic and social obstacles. Vague paeans to ?diversity? are grossly insufficient. (FWIW, the biggest beneficiaries of ?diversity-based AA? these days are WM?s applying to 4-year private colleges, where they are currently underrepresented.) There are many, many facets of diversity that stem chiefly from life experience and belief systems and which encompass, but are not defined by, ethnicity itself; for AA to be justifiable it has to serve a more concrete societal need, and in medical schools this is best encapsulated by the propensity of URM?s (particularly those of destitute backgrounds themselves) to return to underserved minority communities that most urgently need the help (as well as for poor Caucasian and Asian USMG?s to return to their own often-underserved communities upon graduation).

We?d support such a policy if it were done right, and to their credit many schools have been moving in this more disciplined direction, focusing in particular on individual experience and economic hardship. But there?s still just too much corruption, which breeds both inefficiency and the kind of lasting bitterness that, if writ large, can tear a country apart as it becomes more diverse. Most of us are of the ?mend don?t end school? on the AA issue, but the mending needs to be done immediately and comprehensively. Again, we don?t espouse these views out of self-interest; we?ve already scaled our mountains, we?re already in top med schools with successful careers. We form our views out of principle, and we apply the same tenets to our evaluation of AA policy as we do to our case studies: We want the job to be done well, and to assist the people it purports to help.

johnnyMD · Mar 31, 2004

Speaking as an Ivy League WM med student who got pretty much everything he wanted out of the admissions process (interviews everywhere, lots of acceptances, substantial financial assistance and fellowships), I have to state emphatically that even successful whites and Asians at the top of the admissions heap have many problems with affirmative action as it's currently practiced. Our criticisms tend to be nuanced and well-reasoned, but you are in error if you think that people's objections to AA stem merely from self-interest or sour-grapes-type carping; more often than not, we form our opinions on policies like AA on the basis of principle. What bothers us (and I mean everybody here, across many ethnicities) is the risible corruption that has infected and ruined many aspects of AA.

Your opinion towards AA is quite different from the Luther 3.5s of the world. While his complaining appears to be sour grapes, you are in a position in which you were personally unaffected by AA. To me, your position is more unbiased and objective than his.

I agree that AA needs reform. It looks like AMCAS is taking steps in the right direction in tackling these thorny issues. For instance, there's a section requiring you to explain why you feel you are disadvantaged, as well as detailed numerical data of an applicant's socio-economic history, how many hours of work during school, income source, did you have health care, etc. The data is there for adcoms to interpret. How seriously, if at all, adcoms incorporate this data into the applicant profile is another concern. At what point does the blame shift from an imperfect policy to imperfect (lazy) implementation?

We would even back AA policies that lent a boost to wealthier URM?s, so long as the schools exercise the discipline to ensure that beneficiaries of this largesse are also more inclined to practice in underserved minority communities upon completion of residency?the most commonly avowed justification for AA in the first place.

p.65 of AAMC's Minority Report (postgrad, pre residency)

Practice and employment plans after graduation are roughly comparable for both URM graduates and nonURM graduates,with one notable exception. URM graduates are nearly 2.5 times more likely to indicate they plan to practice in an underserved area. Nearly half of all URM graduates,compared to less than one-fifth of nonURM graduates, indicated they planned to practice in an underserved area.

Armed with this knowledge, does it change your current view of AA's ability to achieve its stated goals? Unfortunately, I cant find any numbers on how many actually commit to URM areas post-residency. I'd be interested in that data. Regardless, I think the post-grad numbers shed a favorable light on current AA practices.

Gleevec · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by johnnyMD
p.65 of AAMC's Minority Report (postgrad, pre residency)

Practice and employment plans after graduation are roughly comparable for both URM graduates and nonURM graduates,with one notable exception. URM graduates are nearly 2.5 times more likely to indicate they plan to practice in an underserved area. Nearly half of all URM graduates,compared to less than one-fifth of nonURM graduates, indicated they planned to practice in an underserved area.

Armed with this knowledge, does it change your current view of AA's ability to achieve its stated goals? Things look promising for AA post grad. Unfortunately, I cant find any numbers on how many actually commit to URM areas post-residency. I'd be interested in that data.

While I value this information, I find the statistic that URMs PLAN on practicing underserved areas to be ridiculous. It would not be hard to follow up on said individuals and see if they actually DID end up practicing in an underserved area. I fear that these statistics are not available due to politics rather than methodology, and if someone could actually find these statistics, it would definitely put my mind to ease.

There is a world of difference between saying you will do something in order to ensure that preferential treatment will remain for you, and actually doing it. Until I see statistics about the actual percentage of these individuals that both indicated and now practice in underserved areas, I will continue to remain skeptical about this claim.

JayMiranti · Mar 31, 2004

well if that was the issue why wouldnt they just have more of an incentive of some sort for the most qualified physicians to work in underserved areas, not necessarily URMS..if that is the goal here.

I think all of these other stats and arguments they give are just fodder to distract you from the fact that this is all an excuse to aid in the melting pot process. And thats not a bad thing i dont think, as long as its done reasonably.

JayMiranti · Mar 31, 2004

"i'm curious as to whether the top white/asian candidates have any opinion on aa. it seems like only the weaker candidates (Luthers of the world?) are obsessed with the unjust aspects of AA. Afterall, AA seems to weed out these borderline candidates out in favor of a 3.3 30 URP. Its not like they're not admitting the 3.8 35 white/asians"

Not exactly... these "borderline candidates" that get weeded out are probably well above the stats of the accepted URM they end up taking. I dont think anyone has a problem with the 3.3 30 URM getting in... its the 3.3 25 that we have a problem with, while a non URM with a 3.6 29 gets the boot.......its reality.

medic8m · Mar 31, 2004

Thanks for he post mr_big. I agree, the problem must be attacked from it's root. More of a front end approach.

If universities were somehow prohibited from considering race as a factor, what do you think would happen (quality of educaton, impact on profession, reputation of medical schools/profession, impact on communities)? Would the positives outweigh the negatives?

johnnyMD · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by JayMiranti
Not exactly... these "borderline candidates" that get weeded out are probably well above the stats of the accepted URM they end up taking. I dont think anyone has a problem with the 3.3 30 URM getting in... its the 3.3 25 that we have a problem with, while a non URM with a 3.6 29 gets the boot.......its reality.

the 3.6 29 asian still has only very average numbers and I wouldnt be surprised if this applicant was rejected from all but 1 or 2 schools in favor of an 'underperforming' 3.3 25 URM who is 50% likely to practice in a URM area. I say it again - 3.6 29 white male is destined for a family practice career in a white st. louis suburb that is saturated with family practices.

tangent:
You do realize that if this process was based solely on numbers, med schools would be 1/2 asian/east indian, right? For all we know, quotas/AA are actually helping keep whites in the majority. If you dont want the short end of the stick, dont get a 3.6 29.

.... · Mar 31, 2004

Is is POSSIBLE that the reason more minorities go into rural areas because they are less competitive in getting residencies? If we already know that the average minority marticulant has a 3.3 and a 24, and we also know that the majority of people who don't pass the boards are minorities, its not a large leap to say that their RELATIVE lack of undergrad performance and med school performance puts them in the position of being less like to get an optho residency in boston, but rather a family practice residency in a rural area?

The point being, people who live for four year during residency in alabama probably are not going to move to Houston or Miami to set up practice. They will general stay near where they complete residency where have connections and are acclimated to the area.

Bottom line, i don't think if every student was a white male or an asian male, you would have cities PACKED with doctors and empty ORs in the small towns. Nor do i think that if med schools soley admitted black women you would have a country of mostly primary care rural doctors.

People will fill the needs. And they will fill the most attractive hole possible. People should consider how the effects of admitting struggling students can make them look more altruistic than they are. Prime example, Harvard sending like 50% of their class into derm. Why? Because they can. Meharry would do the same thing if they could.

I just don't buy the insinuation that black applicants are more altruistic. Everyone will gun for the most lucrative and easy specialty they can, unless they have some personal fixation with one area, which is rare as Harvard's match list shows.

johnnyMD · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by hightrump
Is is POSSIBLE that the reason more minorities go into rural areas because they are less competitive in getting residencies? If we already know that the average minority marticulant has a 3.3 and a 24, and we also know that the majority of people who don't pass the boards are minorities, its not a large leap to say that their RELATIVE lack of undergrad performance and med school performance puts them in the position of being less like to get an optho residency in boston, but rather a family practice residency in a rural area?

I just don't buy the insinuation that black applicants are more altruistic. Everyone will gun for the most lucrative and easy specialty they can, unless they have some personal fixation with one area, which is rare as Harvard's match list shows.

I agree with you 100%. URMS are not more altrustic. If they could get a MGH residency and set up shop in Westwood, CA, I'm sure they would. I'm sure the top URMs pursue this path. Of course ADCOMS are fully aware that a 3.3 black wont (cant) practice dermatology in Westchester. they're not expecting miracles out of these candidates. Adcoms admit these students because they are confident that this 3.3 24 URM is very likely to work in an underserved area AND a 3.6 29 White/Asian is likely to work family practice in a saturated market AND the 3.6 29 White/Asian from Lexington, MA wont be pleased to find himself in rural alabama. I find nothing wrong with denying these one-in-a-million average suburb white/asians in favor of a 3.3 URM destined for a career in rural alabama.

Its not an issue of altruism, its simply a matter of distributing needs. Theres only a hundred or so derm spots. For everyone else, the ADCOMS are justified to fill the other spots with candidates that they think will probably align into their master plan.

BOSSofCU · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by Gleevec
Please stop blurring the lines between issues, it only serves to show the weakness of your argument. Affirmative action as it is wouldn't help these incarcerated individuals, because schools tend to select middle and upper class URMs-- the group least likely to commit these crimes anyway.

I'm not blurring the lines. I expected you to make a connection that you did not. I wasn't claiming that AA would help incarcerated individuals. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite, that these individuals are excluded from the pool of potential medical applicants because the two paths are mutually exclusive. And that the percentage of these individuals disqualified for medical school is higher than that of whites adjusted for economics. Furthermore, I think it's reasonable to assume that the same outside social factors (e.g. racism) that make African American males more likely end up in prison than a white male of the same economic status, also make them less likely to succeed in venues like academia, and more importantly make them less likely to ever think that they could succeed in this way, hence to begin down the path. There is a racial component, independent of wealth. Again you ignore this and accuse AA supporters of racism?

For these reasons (and not anything to do with inherent racial differences), there are differences in the applicant pools of URMs and non-URMs. I support AA to the extent that it means adcoms should be allowed to consider race so that the class they admit roughly reflects the actual racial distribution of the nation.

Originally posted by Gleevec
The fact is, a majority of the implicit assumptions behind affirmative action are completely racist.

Why? It's because people of different races are treated differently (i.e. racism) that the differences exist, not because of basic differences between the races. Who argues otherwise?

Originally posted by Gleevec
I dont believe that all URMs are somehow inferior and thus need help, not at all.

Nor would any reasonable person.

Originally posted by Gleevec
I believe that skin color is quite irrelevant to all aspects of intelligence.

As does any reasonable person.

Originally posted by Gleevec
For the life of me, I cant understand how people are willing to assume that URMs are somehow inferior and are in need of AA.

Who is doing that?

Originally posted by Gleevec
I refuse to believe that someone people of different colored skin are somehow intellectually inferior to people of other colored skin, and frankly, there is nothing anyone on this thread can do to influence my opinion on that.

Who asserts this?

Originally posted by Gleevec
I know too many people of too many colors way too well, and seeing what I have seen, I could never make a racial generalization about intelligence. It just seems to immoral to do that, at least to me.

Me too. Get over yourself.

BOSSofCU · Mar 31, 2004

Thanks for that post mr big. It was the most articulate and balanced I have yet read on the subject. I have always supported AA, while understanding its limitations and agitating more vocally for underlying societal changes for the problems that AA at best seeks to bandage. I find it very interesting what you say about the system being abused to benefit rich and connected URMs. I have no personal knowledge of this, and I wondered how do you? Is it not possible that with few exceptions only (relatively) well-off URMs coming from strong families and good schools have the preparation to make it in the top medical schools? It seems quite likely that very few people could overcome the obstacles of a bad school, poverty and a weak support system, to make it to the upper echelon of cantidates (or even to be competitive). In such a dire situation it seems very difficult to survive, let alone begin down a long and difficult career of helping others. I would think that people of any race overcoming these obstacles, and still having competitive numbers would be highly sought after and placed. Is there evidence that this is not true? If it is, your outreach idea program makes great sense, and I think it's important to send the message that these goals are attainable, but ultimately it is the nation's imperative to improve the lot of the disadvantaged and not the adcoms.

And I would ask, isn't the medical community and the nation somewhat at the mercy of admissions committees? Isn't it up to these committees to make the right choices, and do not the choices they make go a long way toward defining the institutions themselves? As a white male, I have also "scaled the mountain" you spoke of and been accepted to an Ivy medical school. Though I have not started yet (and thus not yet met my class) I got was very impressed with the adcom members I met, and did not feel that they would be unduly influenced by wealth or connections. Perhaps this varies from school to school, but I would trust them with the difficult decision they have to make. (Note that I'm cetainly biased because they picked me, but you see my point). Anyway, thanks.

Also, I had not previously considered the relevance of the treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo to this debate (J/K, a good point in context).
-Ross

JayMiranti · Mar 31, 2004

"the 3.6 29 asian still has only very average numbers and I wouldnt be surprised if this applicant was rejected from all but 1 or 2 schools in favor of an 'underperforming' 3.3 25 URM who is 50% likely to practice in a URM area. I say it again - 3.6 29 white male is destined for a family practice career in a white st. louis suburb that is saturated with family practices."

tangent:
You do realize that if this process was based solely on numbers, med schools would be 1/2 asian/east indian, right? For all we know, quotas/AA are actually helping keep whites in the majority. If you dont want the short end of the stick, dont get a 3.6 29."

Well its not like you really have a choice of what you score or what grades you get, everyone does the best they can. And you say the white/asian with a 3.6 29 has "average" numbers... but if this was a URM.. he would get into MULTIPLE schools...and be an "above average" candidate...

I mean lets call a spade a spade, go to the first page of this thread and look at the graph of UCLA admits... this tells the story as I believe it... AVERAGE mcat is 30, but most URMS are well below 30, and most ORMS are well above 30 to compensate..

SO although a 3.6 29 may be "average" it would make a URM a star, and a non URM, as you said, struggle.

And that is what i care about, the fact that your race is not a small plus or minus in your column, it is a HUGE deciding factor.

Gleevec · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by BOSSofCU
I'm not blurring the lines. I expected you to make a connection that you did not. I wasn't claiming that AA would help incarcerated individuals. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite, that these individuals are excluded from the pool of potential medical applicants because the two paths are mutually exclusive. And that the percentage of these individuals disqualified for medical school is higher than that of whites adjusted for economics. Furthermore, I think it's reasonable to assume that the same outside social factors (e.g. racism) that make African American males more likely end up in prison than a white male of the same economic status, also make them less likely to succeed in venues like academia, and more importantly make them less likely to ever think that they could succeed in this way, hence to begin down the path. There is a racial component, independent of wealth. Again you ignore this and accuse AA supporters of racism?

Yeah, I still do think that is implicitly racist, and in fact, I dont think AA as it is helps poor blacks and hispanics enough. The logic of your first statement, that incarcerated individuals are excluded from the medical school admissions pool is incoherent. Are you saying that we should start letting incarcerated people apply to medical school? I agree with you that it is unfortunate that our justice system is oftentimes racist (as well as classist) but you still have not provided a mechanism by which increasing the number of URMs in medical school will somehow keep people out of jail. When these young people commit crimes, they do so in secondary school way before affirmative action can help them. Are you telling me if I am somehow the Dean of Admissions at Harvard Med, that if I accepted 10% more blacks and hispanics, the crime rate somewhere will go down by that fraction? I find that magic hard to believe, but if I could perform such a trick, I would.

Also the kinds of people incarcerated generally are the POORER URMs anyway. Socioeconomic AA would help them too! I dont see what is wrong with this. Its just a race-neutral way of helping out the impoverished. Since URMs are unfortunately disproportionately impoverished, they would also see a disproportionate benefit in terms of AA. So I fail to see how this race-neutral mechanism of AA fails considering the above. Unless of course, you are advocating that only middle and upper class URMs deserve AA. And in that case, I must ask, what is their immediate disadvantage (ie bad schools, bad neighborhoods, had to work too many jobs?) and why is it more important than the more severe disadvantages of poorer people.

Its hard to reason with people like you, who like to ignore the facts and assumptions behind your beliefs and simply act a certain way, probably because you were told to or it benefits you (perhaps more of the latter?)

The fact is, the system in which AA is currently implemented benefits middle and upper class URMs disproportionately. The benefit is distributed to first generation immigrants from Africa or the Carribean (who often times are at complete odds with African-Americans on many of these issues) and to middle and upper class black people.

The logic behind affirmative action, at least according to one race relation professor I had who has been involved with admissions and supports AA, is to create a class of successful URMs. He says that poorer URMs are more likely to fail in this pursuit, and that is why most schools will select for middle and upper class URMs to create this new class.

Of course, my natural reply to this was, "Didnt an URM whose parents are middle/upper class ALREADY make it? Its not as if success is inheritable for more than one generation anyway, as the previous generation creates the context around which the next generation will be raised."

The answer I received wasnt very satisfying at all.

In any case, it seems as if the type of AA advocated here is extremely classist, and that is my main problem here. As Ive said repeatedly, I dont view people as less intelligent because of the color of their skin, so I view educational inequality as the cause of lost opportunity.

Look, Ive stated my case multiple times and Im getting tired of repeating myself, so before you reply make sure you've read through my previous posts on this thread. I do think URMs deserve an equalized playing field with which to get into medical school, but I think the field is already equalized for middle and upper class URMs since they have a chance to get a good education, live in good neighborhoods, etc. Unfortunately, many URMs (as well as non-URMs) live in poverty and do not have such opportunities, and I believe these people DO deserve a fair shot at medical school. That is why I support socioeconomic AA in their case, because its an equalizer, as opposed to blanket AA that disproportionately helps middle and upper class URMs, which is more like a handout to the rich and something I feel is extremely classist.

The fact is BOSSofCU, there is little reason for you to oppose socioeconomic AA unless you feel that the current classist system 1. gives you or someone you know an advantage or 2. you somehow feel that URMs are intellectually inferior and need special assistance in getting into medical schools.

In the case of the former, I could understand why you would be so vehement in your support of the status quo, but in the latter, well, you can't convince me of that because I know of too many smart and talented minorities to ever believe that.

Luthertaketwo · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by johnnyMD
tangent:
You do realize that if this process was based solely on numbers, med schools would be 1/2 asian/east indian, right? For all we know, quotas/AA are actually helping keep whites in the majority. If you dont want the short end of the stick, dont get a 3.6 29.

Actually, the data on accepted students suggests that white and asian stats are nearly the same, with whites accepted from lower socioeconomic status with slightly higher stats.

Luthertaketwo · Mar 31, 2004

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/social/uc-med/uc-med.html

Dispels some myths. Not representative but probably not much different.

Farrah · Mar 31, 2004

HEADLINE: Basing affirmative action on income changes payoff;
Diversity: Maryland's admissions, like most others, could be overhauled by a Supreme Court ruling in Michigan case.

BYLINE: Alec MacGillis

SOURCE: SUN STAFF

BODY:
Like many Americans, Kenyatta Rowel is not entirely comfortable with racial preferences in college admissions. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore sophomore from Annapolis says he'd prefer affirmative action in higher education to be based on socioeconomic disadvantage rather than race.

"It should be promoted not just for minorities but for anyone who's caught the back hand of society," says Rowel, 22, an English major at the historically black college.

With the U.S. Supreme Court weighing the legality of racial preferences at the University of Michigan - a case that could overhaul college admissions in Maryland and the rest of the country - majorities of Americans tell pollsters they'd like to see race-based affirmative action replaced with preferences designed for the poor of all colors. As many see it, that's what affirmative action is supposed to be: a boost to those most in need.

It's a sensible suggestion - except that socioeconomic affirmative action in college admissions may not work the way one expects it to.

Giving an admissions edge to poor college applicants is appealing because it would seem to accomplish the double goal of increasing racial diversity - because many African-Americans and Latinos are clustered low on the economic ladder - while also helping poor white students who are left behind in race-based affirmative action.

But a series of studies have arrived at what many consider a surprising conclusion: Gearing admissions preferences to poor students would reduce the numbers of blacks and Latinos at the country's top schools.

The reason? As opponents of race-based preferences like to point out, nearly all minorities at the best colleges are from the middle and upper-middle classes. Derek Bok and William G. Bowen's The Shape of the River, the definitive defense of affirmative action in college admissions, reports that 86 percent of black students at the top 28 universities are from the middle or upper-middle class.

Focusing preferences on poor students rather than race would, therefore, leave most of the African-Americans now attending top colleges without the admissions edge they now have.

At the same time, studies have found, the shift in preference would not produce a compensatory surge in poor blacks and Latinos at top schools.

While there are higher proportions of these minorities in lower socioeconomic levels than in the overall population, they are outnumbered by poor whites. Class-based preferences would give a boost to low-income blacks and Latinos, but would result in even larger numbers of poor whites, who are greatly underrepresented at top colleges, being admitted.

A recent report by the Century Foundation found that affirmative action based only on income level, which the report generally favored, would result in an admissions pool at the top 146 colleges made up of 4 percent black students and 6 percent Hispanics. Enrollment at those schools now averages 6 percent for each group.

In addition, studies have found, admissions policies geared toward poor students would not include as many low-income blacks and Latinos as one may expect because their grades and test scores are, on average, much lower than those of poor whites and Asians. Competing against working-class blacks and Latinos under a color-blind policy, low-income whites and Asians would be more likely to be admitted.

This happened in the University of California system, which ended race-based preferences eight years ago while still giving an edge to students who have "suffered disadvantage." Immediately, the numbers of Asians at top campuses surged; the numbers of blacks and Latinos plunged. A study by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel found that SAT scores for Californians with family incomes of less than $20,000 were about 200 points higher among whites and Asians than blacks and Latinos.

In fact, defenders of race-based preferences say, income-based preferences would result in less racial diversity at top colleges simply because few poor blacks and Latinos would apply.

"Most (poor blacks and Latinos) are at high schools where you can't get ready for college," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard. In a shift to class-based preferences "you'd lose the minority students best prepared to function on these campuses."

Those in favor of replacing race-based preferences with income-based ones dismiss the argument that this would produce less racial diversity. It stands to reason, they say, that a policy giving an edge to an income class would produce fewer minorities than a policy geared explicitly to blacks and Hispanics.

The fact is, they say, income-based affirmative action is preferable even if it leads to fewer blacks and Latinos attending top colleges. That affirmative action's defenders argue that income-based preferences would reduce the numbers of middle- and upper-middle-class black students at top schools shows, its foes say, how little the policy helps those most in need.

"If you're trying to counter disadvantages, shouldn't we try to counter those disadvantages for all people, no matter what color they are?" said Roger Clegg, general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank.

Proponents of an income-based approach say it would be less divisive than race-based preferences because most Americans view it as fairer. And the income diversity it would result in, they say, would be as valuable to campuses as racial diversity. According to the Century Foundation, only 10 percent of students at the top 146 colleges are from the lower half of the socioeconomic scale; income-based preferences would raise that to 38 percent.

"You're going to have a huge influx of poor whites, but I don't view that as a problem," said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the foundation. "I view it as a good thing to have poor students of all backgrounds."

Defenders of race-based preferences say the proponents of an income-based approach miss the point. Affirmative action in higher education was never meant only as a social uplift mechanism, they say, but also as a way to counter discrimination.

Yes, the beneficiaries of race-based preferences in admissions tend to be middle-class, defenders say, but middle-class blacks still face obstacles unknown to their white counterparts.

"Every time we come close to talking about racism we want to shift" the discussion, said john a. powell, director of the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, who writes his name in lower case. "I certainly don't oppose helping poor whites or poor Asians, but that doesn't address racism."

johnnyMD · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by JayMiranti

Well its not like you really have a choice of what you score or what grades you get, everyone does the best they can. And you say the white/asian with a 3.6 29 has "average" numbers... but if this was a URM.. he would get into MULTIPLE schools...and be an "above average" candidate...

I mean lets call a spade a spade, go to the first page of this thread and look at the graph of UCLA admits... this tells the story as I believe it... AVERAGE mcat is 30, but most URMS are well below 30, and most ORMS are well above 30 to compensate..

SO although a 3.6 29 may be "average" it would make a URM a star, and a non URM, as you said, struggle.

And that is what i care about, the fact that your race is not a small plus or minus in your column, it is a HUGE deciding factor.

There are many pili to this debate on race/gender/socio-economics and admissions. I'm focusing on the main criteria - that is, to create a well balanced profile of future docs. It has less to do with admissions fairness and everything to do with balance - the industry needs applicants who will set up shop in underserved areas.

Unfortunately, not everyone can practice neurosurgery in NYC or family practice in Mobile, AL. The medical profession also needs people (of any race) who will commit to rural alabama or on a navajo reserve in AZ. Yes, of course socio-economic/racial trends will be a huge deciding factor - given 30 yrs of data, the simple fact is the 3.3 URM candidate will pursue this task more often than anyone else. That is the ONLY reason why 3.3 URM will be chosen over 3.6 White/Asian. Any opinions on AA as an instrument for social equity or historical justice is bunk (and also irrelevant).

If u'd like, we can still argue about the fairness of AA. Actually no, there is no argument. its NOT fair to the 3.6 white/azn. but you cant change the fact that society will need docs willing to perform services in underserved areas (at discount salaries, mind you).

MoCookiess · Mar 31, 2004

86 percent of black students at the top 28 universities are from the middle or upper-middle class.
-- Quoted from : http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/social/uc-med/uc-med.html

racial diversity != cultural diversity + socioeconomic diversity

medic8m · Mar 31, 2004

Thats a good point JohnnyMD. We need to remember that every community needs doctors. Medical schools are held accountable for filling that need. In this sense, they have a direct effect on the overall health of the nation. Medicine is unique in this regard... Maybe more monetary incentives to practice in underserved areas is the answer. But where is that money going to come from, the feds? Tax increase? Local govt?

I doubt culinary schools have such problems.

Luthertaketwo · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by medic8m
Thats a good point JohnnyMD. We need to remember that every community needs doctors. Medical schools are held accountable for filling that need. In this sense, they have a direct effect on the overall health of the nation. Medicine is unique in this regard... Maybe more monetary incentives to practice in underserved areas is the answer. But where is that money going to come from, the feds? Tax increase? Local govt?

I doubt culinary schools have such problems.

If that was the main reason, they would just stipulate you need to work in an underserved area for at least X years upon gaining your MD. Two studies I've seen have come to the same conclusion about rural physicians:
"Rural interested seniors tend to be white, married, and a bit older and male."

So, these two factors are suggestive that you are straw-grabbing.

Oh, wait there's more:

"Over 60% of rural-interested (remember white, male, etc?) students planned to locate their practices in a socioeconomically deprived area as compared with only 11.5% of other medical students."

jtorres · Mar 31, 2004

jaymiranti put it perfectly. why is it that when a URM has a 3.6 and a 29 or 30 on the mcat he/she is considered a qualified "minority candidate". why can we not be just normal candidates. while AA has lowered the bar for some, it has made it harder for other URMs. everywhere we go we have to prove that we can 1) speak english, 2) that we have some level of intelligence, and finally 3) that we are just as qualified. those that dont benefit from AA have to be over-qualifed just to get anywhere and we spend most of our lives having to prove to people that we can compete. this issue permeates all aspects of society. a few months ago Sports Illustrated had a cover arcticle "100 most influential minorities in sports". such ways of thought imply that URMs are expected to fail and that those that make it are unique. many times we dont go looking for AA or favoratism because of race. it is forced upon us. my application process should deal with me getting into med school and not playing my odds correctly because the color of my skin. many of us URMs are just normal people that are trying to make our dreams come true and the only thing we face is resentment over something we have no control over.

Luthertaketwo · Mar 31, 2004

Here's where that came from. http://www.unmc.edu/Community/ruralmeded/model/medsch/aamcdat.htm

I'm kind of disturbed by the fact that certain researchers extolling the virtues of minority recruitment are such massive liars.

medic8m · Mar 31, 2004

If AA is so outrageous and perpetrated by "massive liars", why does every school consider race? Wouldn't at least one university have the balls/common sense/morality to not consider race? Who or what great force is holding admission comittees to this standard? .. and keep it the name calling and insults to a minimum.

Peterock · Mar 31, 2004

This is silly.

Poor non-URMs have totally different challenges from regular URMs. Why is it that poor whites/asians etc have to be pitted against URM's? I'd much rather have the a few URMs at my school than the scores of vacuous middle/upper class twits that are obviously in medicine b/c of mommy, daddy, and greed.

Must there be only one program or form of AA? Please. Frankly, they need to create two seperate programs that create the same goal: getting people who have faced hardships and discrimination into colleges and medical schools. The disadvantaged box on the AMCAS is not cutting it and good luck finding any stats on disadvantaged premed/med students.

The %'s of black/latinos in elite colleges and medical schools is laughable. It's even worse for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Both have OBVIOUS skills that others cannot have and niches that other doctors have not filled in the past (ie rural healthcare, inner city healthcare, practicing medicine in underserved populations etc).

Ex-fix · Mar 31, 2004

Frick,

Yes, minorities benefit from AA. I have been following these post closely for a while now. Many of you believe that AA equates to some sort of inferiority or subpar minority whom the admissions requirements have been lowered. The requirements not only are measured in verticality, but to some admission boards there are horizontal moves. Some medical schools considere backgrounds higher than GPA. Some only use GPA and MCAT to grant interviews. The ability to handle stress is an important determinant. Medical school offers stresses like many have never seen before. GPAs and MCAT's aren't everything. Everyone is smart in med shool, however everyone isn't mature enough to become a physician. And no, all minorities are mature. Don't get my statements twisited. The majority of these minoirites are the cream of the crop. I am sure there are a few white students that are accepted with lower scores and weaker profiles. Why aren't people arguing about their acceptance into med school? Because it is assumed that they have scores shouldn't even be questioned.

AA action doesn't require to decrease their admission requirements. AA only enusres that there is equality in the application process. As far as the PR issue, I believe that attention should be raised at those instittutions that have no way to enure racial equality. I know alot of people feel that professional racism is abolished in the US. THe same people that hold this belief have never been subjected to racism in the academic environment or are clearly part of the majority.

There is no way to not consider race when trying ensuring equlaity. THe patients that we treat in this country are clearly from different backgrounds and cultures, why can't our physicians be the same way?

bubbajones · Mar 31, 2004

look I think AA is a great program. And the people who are bitching about it are rich yuppies who cant get in. And if you are white and poor ...why do you think Amcas has a disadvantaged box. Yeah Yeah shut up. Quit complaining and being racist.
I think you mist certainly would feel differently if the tables were turned. So get your facts straight man.

BUMP +pissed+

haha

Luthertaketwo · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by bubbajones
look I think AA is a great program. And the people who are bitching about it are rich yuppies who cant get in. And if you are white and poor ...why do you think Amcas has a disadvantaged box. Yeah Yeah shut up. Quit complaining and being racist.
I think you mist certainly would feel differently if the tables were turned. So get your facts straight man.

BUMP haha

Unfortunately, oh ignorant one that apparently cannot read, the data suggest otherwise. Both the carnevale study and the one I posted above clearly show that not only is being "disadvantaged" not helpful in admission, it is actually counterproductive. I know you are a little slow on the uptake, so I'll distill that all down to something you can handle: checking the box decreases your chances of being accepted.

bearpaw · Mar 31, 2004

I hope when we are discussing "vociferous minority groups" (a la frick) that we are excluding asians.

Asians are in fact victim to reverse discriminination...do you want proof?

Look at Caltech, stanford. They do not use AA in admissions... hence 30% of their class is asian and there was one black person admitted (.5%). Check it out:http://www.lsmsaaa.org/for_students/caltech_admissions_2000.txt

Check out stanford, where they don't favor asians as well.

Every other top school has lower numbers of asians. Why? Even though asians make up a very disproportiate number of students in any top college, the fact is if it were based solely on merit, we'd be even in greater proportion.

However, most top schools do not want a class that's 30% asian, so they raise the bar until only 20% or so get in. Its sad that 4% of the US population can displace so many more settled individuals, but those are the facts.

In fact, I took a class with a very prominent african american teacher at my ivy (who is somewhat famous) and he told me that he knows for a fact that asians immediately expected to score 50 points higher on the SAT. that means a white 1450 = asian 1500. I am certain that he knows more about this than any of us, and he told me this in a very friendly context (I was making fun of being black at my school, he was making fun of being asian/indian).

Frick, in the pm you sent me, the students all had great SAT scores and good overall stats. They probably applied to every Ivy and were accepted to only one or two, wheras you (based on the schools you wrote) only applied to a few top schools and WERE granted admission to Caltech (which is the most selective school in my opinion). I don't think you were shafted and the others unfairly let in. Mind you, most students in any school will have numbers less than yours, but they still deserve to get in.

My indian friend with a 37 and a 3.95 from an ivy with sick research that he actually cares about got rejected from harvard and another excellent school. Do I claim racism? His interviews were amazing...they talked about a random book in detail (something that clearly impressed his interviewer). No, that's the game at that level. I know a white girl getting her MD/PhD there who has nothing on him, but i don't care to why she got in and he did not. It's too random at that level.

I think AA hurts everyone. Whites get in easier than asians but still can play the scapegoat to other minorities because they too lose "deserved seats", asians suffer for raising their own bar, and blacks/latinos/everyone else who get in based on merit don't get the credit they deserve. I think AA is beneficial for new immigrant groups, like the Hmong, who have faced more obstacles than most in settling into this country. I know it sucks being in a country that discriminated for 100's of years, but black communities need more educational support so there won't be a need to lower the bar. Look, every white kid out there is born into some priveledge, whether or not they care to admit it. Its a white county.

White people stole the Native american's land. They stole the labor of slaves. Therefore, they made a pretty nice place for themselves. But now, since people want to make a fair society. there are some reprecussions and some costs to be paid. It's only fair. If I beat you up, steal your money and dignity, and then feel guilty and call a truce, we are still NOT EVEN.

I still owe you your money and dignity.

The real fix for slavery and racism is having society put something back into the black community (such as giving them equal educational opportunities from BIRTH), as society was built upon their stolen sweat, blood, and toil. In that way, blacks can get back what was taken before and their dignity in the process.

Whites can lose that nagging feeling of knowing "[insert racial group here]s keep taking my [spots in med school/jobs/communities". There need to be changes, but it might take a more neutral party to make it, one who has little to gain or lose (ASIANS!!!....uh, jk right? haha).

johnnyMD · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
checking the box decreases your chances of being accepted.

Why is this true (if it is)? Is it because adcoms select against truly disadvantaged applicants? Or is it due to the fact that most people who check the box are (in the eyes of the adcom) not disadvantaged and looking for a competitive advantage?

Adcoms are veterans of the game, people. they know who's genuine about medicine, who's passionate about serving underprivilaged, and especially who's truly disadvantaged.

jtorres · Mar 31, 2004

my point exactly. thats why AA is the necessary evil that it is. i dont know what you mean by this peterock but either way its the sad truth. it could mean that these elite med schools have absolutely no idea that not everyone has the same fair chance at pursuing their dreams. it could also mean that blacks/latinos are to dumb to be in med school. they are both views are representative of the social problems we face in this country. i know that i could more than hack it at johns hopkins, baylor, or harvard but unfortunantly i may never get the chance to prove myself. i just hope the state schools here in my native texas dont harbor the same ill opinions the elite schools and some of you have.

Peterock · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by johnnyMD
Why is this true (if it is)? Is it because adcoms select against truly disadvantaged applicants? Or is it due to the fact that most people who check the box are (in the eyes of the adcom) not disadvantaged and looking for a competitive advantage?

Adcoms are veterans of the game, people. they know who's genuine about medicine, who's passionate about serving underprivilaged, and especially who's truly disadvantaged.

This is a pile of crap. If you insist talking out of your butt, couldn't you simply go to the everyone forum? Adcoms are human and rather old, conservative and sheltered ones at that. Since most of the dinosaurs that have interviewed me are roughly 60yo men... most of these people were just experiencing this "civil rights" thing - and were probably not happy about it.

I've seen Adcoms accept students I've known for 4, if not 8 years - whose only goal is to make money or to give in to the pressures of their family. They have no interest in medicine, the welfare of others, or even making this world a better place.

Since when do rich old white people who live in an upper class bubble have the legitimacy to tell me whether or not I'm disadvantaged? What a bunch of ignorant BS.

I grew up poor, I volunteered in homeless shelters and soup kitchens and I have studied/participated in welfare to work programs. It's a waste. Someone could have easily pretended to do all these things and claim they care, I have slightly more legitimacy b/c I grew up w/ this background.

In case you guys haven't figured it out - checking that disadvantaged box is marginally, if at all helpful. The system is highly imperfect, and I do not see rich whites, jews, indians, asians, blacks, etc changing any of it. Classism is an acceptable form of discrimanation in this country as it always will be.

And would people drop it about rich URM's. Whether you like it or not, a rich black doctor is still a n!gg^r to way too many people in our society. Stop denying the OBVIOUS realities of US culture.

dredloc_doc · Mar 31, 2004

I am both shocked and amazed at how naive some of the posters seem to be in regards to AA. As one poster did mention, AA was developed to help White women and Blacks. Now if you don't want to believe it, go look it up. I unfortunately don't have time to spoonfeed grown @#$ children.

As a Black woman aspiring to become a physician, I think it's foolish to even believe that racism doesn't exist and that the minorities who rightfully earned a spot in a medical school that you wanted but didn't get in, is a token. I can only vouch for myself, but I have worked damn hard to get where I am now. I haven't benefitted from AA, I've just worked hard and did what I was supposed to do. I'm sorry that you're salty about not getting into the medical school you wanted to get into, but don't take it out on those "undeserving" blacks.

Take a step and evaluate why you didn't get in, it's more than likely your f#$%^!@ up attitude towards life is what probably cost you your beloved spot.

When was the last time you visited a doctor or a hospital? Can you honestly tell me that there were more Black, Hispanic, Indian, Cambodian doctors vs. White? I didn't think so. I guess all those people are still waiting to get into medical school.

Before you post another ignorant message on the board, make sure you have you stuff together. Oh, by the way if I have some typos, don't even bother to call me on it, because believe me, you don't want to go there with me.

Ryo-Ohki · Apr 1, 2004

If AA is all well, good and honorable then why do you feel the need to state that you haven't benefited from AA? Shouldn't you be proud to be part of this terrific program?

The race based AA of today is a good thing even if white women had not benefited from a from of AA in the past, right? If this is the case, why do you feel the need justify race based AA by mentioning sex based AA? Race based AA can stand on its own merits, right?

Does it alleviate your conscience to paint the victims of AA as persons with "f#$%^!@ up attitudes"? Indeed, do you believe there are any hard working marginal applicants that did what they were supposed to do but did not get in due to AA?

scota · Apr 1, 2004

Please stop these URM threads (I apologize for starting one myself a few months ago 🙄.) For those who feel AA cheats them, please understand that URM pre-meds don't delve into the process thinking that they will have some sort of advantage simply because they are URMs. We work our butts off just like everybody else! Adcoms are not completely stupid-- they know who can handle med. school and will not likely accept someone who is unqualified! So please stop these threads!!!

camstah · Apr 1, 2004

can i ask a stupid question?
i read in the article posted on the previous page that affirmative action benefits mostly middle to upper class minorities....and that's why an income-based affirmative action would decrease the number of URMs in college....and that the poor that would benefit would be whites and asians, because they tend to have higher test scores than similarly poor URMS...so has anyone asked the question why do asians and whites get higher test scores when they are just as poor? and why aren't URMs that are middle and upper class able to compete for college spots without affirmative action, since most arguments i've read point to disparities in financial support between URMs and nonURMs, leading to differences in test scores...which you don'thave if the URMs in college are middle and upper class.....this doesn't make any sense....it says they face discrimination...what kind? does the fact that 70% of people mistake me for hispanic mean that i face discrimination too, and that i should benefit from affirmative action? i'm not all that familiar with the arguments for and against AA, but if someone could explain this stuff, that'd be cool....

Affirmative Action and Med School Application

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Membership Revoked

Waiting for March 20th

Hater of Biochemistry

Peter, those are Cheerios

Senior Member

Member

Membership Revoked

Hater of Biochemistry

Membership Revoked

Junior Member

Membership Revoked

Peter, those are Cheerios

Senior Member

Senior Member

Full Member

Membership Revoked

....

Membership Revoked

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Peter, those are Cheerios

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Senior Member

Membership Revoked

Hater of Biochemistry

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Senior Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

"PeeT-Ro'k"

Junior Member

BIG TEX

Membership Revoked

celebrated member

Membership Revoked

Senior Member

"PeeT-Ro'k"

Junior Member

Full Member

Senior Member

running thru dandelions

Similar threads