Hi again Geneman! Hope you're doin' great :wink:
But back to what you said--very intelligent and solid points and I appreciate your consideration of what I said. It's so easy to get flustered and I'm glad no one's been doing that (lately that is) on this thread
!
Given what you've stated--so what do you think of minority programs in which study skills (including MCAT stuff) and clinical experiences are used to promote diversity within the medical classes? Alot of people respectfully do not agree with these, and I personally believe programs such as the MMEP offered by the AAMC allow for more diversity without compromising anyone. On the other hand, I really think such programs NEED to be started BEFORE college so that many minorities can find higher GPA's and MCAT scores.
Doin' great gang
!
•••quote:•••Originally posted by geneman:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Michelys:
•Hey guys--
I'm really glad everyone seems to be having a respectful dialogue with one another. You have no idea!
Anyways, it's easy to drift...so lemme bring up some topics. Feel free to comment on them as I'd really like to know what you all think.
1) Position One: AA as it stands isn't effectively "balancing" the minority application process in terms of class number and students accepted. (In my opinion, and this is just my plain thought, 10-12 or so URM's per class of 100 plus is ridiculous. For example, Rochester states URM's are 11% of their entering class. Which means about 11 students, 10 if you don't count me. I'm not saying lower GPA's and MCAT scores, that's simply not the solution. I personally think more consideration needs to be given on the candidate as a whole in addition to scores to balance the entering classes. Hypothetically, most in support of AA and minority admissions claim the classes should reflect the diverse society in which we live in. I personally refuse to think (and get mildly PO'd) when many students "assume" that URM's "get in" with lower scores and GPA's. They MIGHT HAVE them--but as you know, people with lower scores and GPA's usually have to boost research, EC's, and other aspects of the application that are equally important. I, for instance, busted my @$$ in research in leiu of my low GPA and alright MCAT. To think that committee's simply "let in" underqualified applicants, be they minorities, is ridiculous. These people are in charge of the future health of their communities and to do something so ridiculous as letting an "underqualified applicant in" would be ridiculous, don't you think?)
2. Position Two: If taking minorities into consideration to balance a medical school class isn't suitable for many of you disputing what you term AA in admissions, what would you all suggest implementing to promote diversity in a medical school class? (I'm quite open to this--please comment liberally!)
I personally am not just for URM's in medicine--I'm for all "minorities" as well. I went to the University of Miami as an undergrad and my close friends were all from Lebanese to Vietnamese to Hawaiian. I hope, but am slightly disenchanted, that my medical school class will reflect this diversity as well with qualified students of such cultures that are deemed worthy by the admissions committees and not by sheer numbers as cutoffs. You all know the interview is important, as intensive clincal experiences and research and academic rigor. Please comment as I'm eager to hear any interesting ideas you all have. You're doing great so far--it's truly nice to have different and positive views to consider :wink: .
Take care,
Michelys•••••Hi Michelys! Hope you're doing well. Here are my thoughts on your two positions.
Position One:
I agree that no admissions committee lets in a single "underqualified" applicant -- that would unethical. But what admissions committees have done is to let in "lesser" qualified individuals (GPA/MCAT, interviews, letters of rec., the whole applicant) in the name of diversity. Ultimately, there is no argument against this because it is a philosophical issue of meritocracy vs. diversity -- where we, as a society, want to stand on that spectrum. Kind of like capitalism vs socialism -- the tradeoff between pure competition and its benefits vs. more safety nets and its benefits. There is no "right" answer.
For instance, I had a discussion with my parents the other week about the following hypothetical situation. You own a successful business and your child wants to take it over when you retire. The problem is that you don't have much confidence in your child's ability to maintain the business. Would you transfer control of the business to your child? My mom said yes, she would do anything for her family. My dad said no, if the child isn't capable, it's silly to drive a business into the ground. Who is right? There is no "right" answer, although I personally favor my father's position.
The dangerous thing about trying to perfectly balance the ethnic makeup of a class is that the guiding force of admissions is further pushed away from ability towards matching society's ethnic composition. I read somewhere in SDN citing an AAMC study (correct me if I'm wrong) that if Affirmative Action were abolished, the percentage of whites getting into med school would rise by 5%, Asians by 25%, and African Americans would fall by 80%. So, even at 11% URM at Rochester, AA is still functioning behind the scenes.
Position Two:
In the long-term, I think it is essential to target these underprivileged areas and find ways to improve access to educational opportunities. Even more importantly, we need to change certain cultures from one that is anti-intellectual to one in which education is encouraged. There are a lot of African American intellectuals with plenty of suggestions on how to do this.•••••
