I have also wondered what the average URM acceptance stats are for each school comparatively, and Im more curious to see the overall acceptance rate of all URM's in a cycle (I'm led to believe its well over the 50% in non-URM applicants). This is just out of curiosity, I dont intend to step on any toes.
On another note, The University of Michigan has gotten itself into some serious legal trouble over the past few years, leading up to the banning of affirmative action in the state of Michigan, with all colleges and universities affected. This was voted on by the people of Michigan into affect this spring. So both UofM and MSU do not engage in racial or gender profiling, but they do acknowledge socio-economically challenged applicants.
That's not the way they told it on interview day...
I'll give my thoughts on the subject. As a preface, I'm farther to the left than any of you, and my problems with affirmative action don't have anything to do w/ bullsh*t about "reverse discrimination".
In my mind, there are three commonly used justifications for AA: to give disadvantaged applicants an even playing field; to provide for "diversity" in the school; and to increase the number of urm physicians. All three have merit in the ideal sense, but only the third is applicable to medical school (because we really do need more minority doctors in this country). However, this rationale doesn't hold up under legal challenge.
Now for the first rationale, that AA is necessary to help out disadvantaged applicants. Of course truly disadvantaged applicants should be given a leg up, but what I can't get past is this thought that keeps spinning around in my head: How can a black female who went to an Ivy league university be considered "disadvantaged"? Why should a rich minority be given preferential admission over a poor white? It doesn't make any sense to me. But, under a race-based admissions policy, the child of a black executive would receive admission over the child of a poor coal miner, all else being equal.
Moreover, AA doesn't really serve to help out the most disadvantaged people: poor minorities, who bear the burden of 400 years of overt racism and discrimination (affluent minorities, on the other hand, are able to escape this. and don't even try to say that just cause you were called the n-word once by some hillbilly that you've been a victim). In fact, a long study of the UC system showed that enrollment rates of poor minorities didn't increase after AA was implemented and that the only group helped was that of affluent minorities, who were able to enroll in more prestigious schools than they otherwise would have been, based on test scores, etc.
Finally, we come to "diversity". My question is: is diversity really a laudable goal for an admissions office that can benefit the education of the school's students? For undergraduate colleges, I believe the answer is yes--because learning from your classmates is an essential part of a well-rounded education. But medical school is professional school and I don't believe that this is applicable, because med students don't spend their time learning from each other, rather they learn science from their classes and textbooks and clinical medicine from attending physicians and residents, as well as patients.
That's why I'm against affirmative action, as it is carried out. I'd be totally in favor of admission based solely on socio-economic status. What we really need is a complete overhaul of society and, failing that, vastly increased investment in early education.
