Am I considered "disadvantaged" if I have a daughter?

[MeowMeowCAT]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Actually you can:

http://columbiafertilityassociates.com/art.html#16


yayy

Awesome. My kids will be the ****!

 

[ejw5075]

I highly doubt she got pregnant so early just to "feel the joy of being a mommy"...

...or there's the possibility that she didn't mean to get pregnant in the first place.

So early? When did she state her age? She could be 40 for all we know...

 

[LizzyM]

You have a valid point that OP put herself in this situation (though she may not have but I'm not going into such scenarios). However, I highly doubt anyone goes out and gets pregnant just to put it on their med school app. Is this "advantage" truly that threatening to applicants? She asked a simple question and was ridiculed for it. Even more confusing, it was a valid question and according to the AAMC, she is correct in assuming she would be "disadvantaged".

I am looking at pages 33 and 34 of the AAMC instructions for 2012 and I don't see anything about having a child as being a "disadvantaged" in the Childhood Information section.

I would also point out that having a child after taking the MCAT is different than having a child before finishing HS.

 

[ponyo]

I am looking at pages 33 and 34 of the AAMC instructions for 2012 and I don't see anything about having a child as being a "disadvantaged" in the Childhood Information section.

I would also point out that having a child after taking the MCAT is different than having a child before finishing HS.

I think ejw wasn't talking about the child but about the state/federal assistance programs, on the same page of the manual. Having said that I have no clue whether that applies to OP since she's already done with her education and this clearly didn't happen in her childhood.

 

[ejw5075]

I am looking at pages 33 and 34 of the AAMC instructions for 2012 and I don't see anything about having a child as being a "disadvantaged" in the Childhood Information section.

I would also point out that having a child after taking the MCAT is different than having a child before finishing HS.

I'm not too experienced on the details of disadvantaged, I only looked up what was on the aamc website.

 

[Geekchick921]

Actually you can:

http://columbiafertilityassociates.com/art.html#16


yayy

And that stuff is expeeeeeeeeeeeensive, especially since it's done hand in hand with advanced fertility treatments like IVF. It's generally for people that are trying to avoid specific genetic disorders, but I know it can be used for sex selection as well, like in your link.

This thread is gross. I suspect the OP may be trolling (seem to be some inconsistencies in previous posts), and while I agree she's not disadvantaged, a lot of you are showing your butts in here.

 

[LizzyM]

I'm not too experienced on the details of disadvantaged, I only looked up what was on the aamc website.

Link, please. I'm trying to educate myself.

 

[ejw5075]

Link, please. I'm trying to educate myself.

See post #8 in this thread, under the category state and federal assistance programs.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

See post #8 in this thread, under the category state and federal assistance programs.

Just a note, the link you mentioned is from 2009,
https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2009/WebApp/Help/WebHelp/Disadvantaged_Status.htm

However, I did look up the same page for the 2012 application, and it looked the same,

https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2012/WebApp/Help/WebHelp/Disadvantaged_Status.htm

Just a clarification if anybody wanted to bring this up. It seems the only real difference was the rewording of the "Underserved" section.

 

[ejw5075]

Just a note, the link you mentioned is from 2009,
https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2009/WebApp/Help/WebHelp/Disadvantaged_Status.htm

However, I did look up the same page for the 2012 application, and it looked the same,

https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2012/WebApp/Help/WebHelp/Disadvantaged_Status.htm

Just a clarification if anybody wanted to bring this up. It seems the only real difference was the rewording of the "Underserved" section.

Actually, there is a real difference in the 2009 and 2012 versions. I simply googled it and saw aamc, thinking it was accurate. The 2009 version is titled "disadvantaged status" whereas the 2012 version specifically states your childhood information. According to this, the OP (unless under 18) would not be disadvantaged.

 

[LizzyM]

The top section clearly says "your childhood". If you are over 18 and give birth and that child qualifies for state-subsidized health care, or Medicaid or WIC (food for women, infants and children), how does that relate to your childhood??

I will grant you, if you give birth at 15 and get federal means tested assistance, then you might consider yourself as having a disadvantaged childhood.

Having a child does not, by definition, make one disadvantaged.

Also, interesting side note. Since the disadvantaged question was added in 2002, the proportion of "disadvantaged" who have been admitted has been less than the proportion of non-disadvantaged applicants who have been admitted. So, there is no advantage to checking the box.

https://www.aamc.org/download/122492/data/garrison.pdf

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

The change of the title seems a bit confusing though because the wording of the sections still is the same. Are they asking if any of the three sections applied to you as a child?

 

[LizzyM]

The change of the title seems a bit confusing though because the wording of the sections still is the same. Are they asking if any of the three sections applied to you as a child?

Right at the top it says:

All applicants are required to answer questions regarding their childhood.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Right at the top it says:

All applicants are required to answer questions regarding their childhood.

Yes, but does that mean that you are not allowed to be disadvantages now? That despite your childhood, everything should be fine now?

 

[ejw5075]

The top section clearly says "your childhood". If you are over 18 and give birth and that child qualifies for state-subsidized health care, or Medicaid or WIC (food for women, infants and children), how does that relate to your childhood??

I will grant you, if you give birth at 15 and get federal means tested assistance, then you might consider yourself as having a disadvantaged childhood.

Having a child does not, by definition, make one disadvantaged.

Also, interesting side note. Since the disadvantaged question was added in 2002, the proportion of "disadvantaged" who have been admitted has been less than the proportion of non-disadvantaged applicants who have been admitted. So, there is no advantage to checking the box.

https://www.aamc.org/download/122492/data/garrison.pdf

That does not relate to childhood, that's why I'm saying I was incorrect in saying she could apply disadvantaged.

I completely agree with you that applying with this status doesn't do much for an application, which is why I don't understand how upset people get over it.

 

[ejw5075]

Yes, but does that mean that you are not allowed to be disadvantages now? That despite your childhood, everything should be fine now?

No, it means you cannot become "disadvantaged" as an adult. So basically growing up in poverty (birth-18 or any length in there) but making a six figure income at 25 would qualify one as disadvantaged. Obviously people over 18 claim disadvantaged because there aren't that many applicants to medical school under 18.

 

[StephanieZ]

Again, what's your point? Disadvantaged should be for things out of your control, no question asked. If you grow up in a house where learning is severely hampered by means outside of your control, great, I can sympathize with why that person should be given a little slack. But going out, getting pregnant with a baby you can't afford, and then asking to be given slack because of that?

It's actually really sad to see how this country has become. People just want everything handed to them today, and no one wants to work for it anymore. Maybe I was just raised differently.. but the whole premise of the OP's question is just sad.

If you'll notice, I said the same you are saying. She is not disadvantaged. My point is that it's silly to assume that if having a kid got you a pass into med school, everyone would do it. It's by no means the easy road.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Also, interesting side note. Since the disadvantaged question was added in 2002, the proportion of "disadvantaged" who have been admitted has been less than the proportion of non-disadvantaged applicants who have been admitted. So, there is no advantage to checking the box.

Could this be because "disadvantaged" generally have lower grades and at times they are so low that it isn't competitive whatsoever. On the other hand, it may give a second look to an applicant that has some competitiveness? Just wondering.

 

[JJMrK]

Please keep it civil. This thread may be on the fast track to being closed.

 

[ponyo]

Could this be because "disadvantaged" generally have lower grades and at times they are so low that it isn't competitive whatsoever. On the other hand, it may give a second look to an applicant that has some competitiveness? Just wondering.

I think what you say is probably true.

LizzyM's original citation was misleading, because saying that checking the box is not advantageous is only valid if you're comparing applicants of the same credentials. The data shows that disadvantaged applicants have lower MCAT and GPA scores, and it would also be reasonable to guess that they might also have less ECs and possibly a poorer undergrad education than regular applicants. Those differences are much more likely to account for their lower acceptance rate than the fact that they ticked the box.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Also, interesting side note. Since the disadvantaged question was added in 2002, the proportion of "disadvantaged" who have been admitted has been less than the proportion of non-disadvantaged applicants who have been admitted. So, there is no advantage to checking the box.

https://www.aamc.org/download/122492/data/garrison.pdf

Could be because this allowed for the question to now have "standarized" answer whereas with before such stuff probably would have been judged on a person to person basis. Basically it might have become a lot more difficult for a person to fit the new cookie cutter policy, and if you do not fit then the adcoms can easily ignore your specific case.

Basically, it just is becoming more difficult to not be "perfect" and be without any fault.

I am not sure how long lizzy has been working, but I am pretty sure at an earlier point there have been applicants that got a pas that right now wouldn't. And unfortunately it probably had minor effect on the outcome of the student, basically I am pretty sure a person someone applying before 2002 with the disadvantageous status probably turned out to be a fine doctor by now.

Meh, whatever, adcoms are not going anywhere, and the gap they make between you and the actual medical school is not going to get any smaller.

 

[Doctor246853]

Boys are so much easier to take care of then girls. Especially teenage girls. From my experiences as a teenage boy, I can honestly say I have no intention of having daughters (artificial insemination ftw).

Well thats true. I have came across a few situations where I caught myself saying to myself "dam I'm glad I had a boy". Especially the teenage part, with no mom, can get awkward.😕

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

I rather have a gay son than a girl, get the best of both worlds.

 

[whatbout2morrow]

From the OP's first ever post back in July of 2007, OP was a junior at a 4 year university in 2007. Without a doubt, the OP is not a teenage mom and, as LizzyM said, under the current rules, the OP's child would be able to apply as 'disadvantaged,' but not the OP.

 

[StudyShy]

Only 3....amateur 🙂

I love you!

I've got three. 😛

 

[Averywan]

It can certainly raise questions in an interview about how you will handle work/family balance including explicit plans for dealing with a sick offspring who can't go to school/daycare because of contagion.

That brings up a good point for selecting schools. Some provide students with in-home childcare when your kid is sick and other awesome programs. For me however, quality medical education trumps all and my spouse can deal with the rest. It gives him a better case for alimony…😀

For the OP, my two cents on talking about kids in the application is why not? If they put your application on a "mommy track" they will put your career on a "mommy track." No Fun! Or worse, what if your mentors have the same attitude as some of the other posters here. Those guys have me imagining future physicians treating children and patients like Untouchables.


Bottom line, a baby is not a disadvantage nor unique. Hopefully it's a challenge where you can show your strengths; like being utterly sleep deprived, but still acing everything.