ANother Disadvantaged Status Question

[LP1CW]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I don't understand all the discussions about disadvantaged status for two reasons. First, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't a computer program take your stats and determine if you get a secondary. So, if you don't have the numbers, you don't get a secondary from schools that prescreen.

Secondly, if you don't have the numbers. Have not proven yourself with MCAT, GPA, etc...then what makes it possible for you to cut it in medical school? I mean, if you got by with C's in college, had a 23 MCAT, even if you were greatly disadvantaged, how is that going to help you pass the boards? I know people come from tough backgrounds. And I feel for them, but I don't think we should lower the bar.

 

[Anka]

Not everyone who has a disadvantaged status has Cs and low MCATs. Some of them may have "average" scores for the entering class for both. In that case, it's important to note that they did all of that while managing another burden as well.

Second, disadvantaged status might explain a paucity of ECs -- I mean, if you're working full time you can't be volunteering to feed quads through a straw 12 hours a week.

Finally, it is important to recognize the unique contribution to a class that a 'disadvantaged' applicant can make. A person who grew up in the inner city has more insight into what is preventing their patients from receiving or responding to care. For social reasons, therfore, it is desireable to admit people with "passable" grades and MCATs.

Anka

 

[SpiritiualDuck]

I don't know if it makes a difference to apply as a disadvantaged student. And I agree that you should have certain numbers or demonstrative skills to get into medical school.

But I don't think people are applying as disadvantaged to get an advantage over others. I think they are just saying that they had a tough time of it. And that they face obstacles beyond what most of us normally contend with. And the greyness of this will continue. Who knows what it really means to be truly disadvantaged. Who knows the cut off between just having a hard life and truly being disadvantaged.

So, is it true that schools just take yours stats and enter them into a computer and it gives out a yes or no to a secondary for schools that prescreen? If this is true, don't waste your money on applying to schools if you don't have close to their numbers.

 

[voltron77]

Anka makes a great point!!!! I second that point and agree with you completely!!!

 

[Eraserhead]

Anka, I'm right with you there. Its important to explain how your background is related to your interest in medicine and how this background will affect your medical practice (if it will). In some cases, the background will be so important as to lead some admissions committees to overlook academic problems, but I do not believe that is the primary purpose of "applying disadvantaged." The purpose is to share relevant social or economic background information that might (or in many cases, will) be overlooked otherwise that is necessary to give the committee a complete picture of your accomplishments and direction.

 

[Arista.MD]

About disadvantaged status this is what I was advised:

Unless you had a tough life that left you with scars such as emotional imbalance from parental abuse, etc. you should not apply for disadvantaged.

I had to work full time during college to support myself and my family; I got absolutely no help from my family, because they could not affort it. Without the financial aid package I had I would have never been able to go to school.
You can always show your disadvantaged background in the secondary essays.
And by the way, people from disadvantaged backgrounds do not necessarily have lower gpa and MCAT score. Actually, they tend to be very competitive candidates because they had a tough life and they understand that to succeed one really needs to work hard.

 

[Eraserhead]

Dana-doc, who gave you this information? It conflicts with the information on the AMCAS website and all of the disadvantaged applications I have completed.

 

[Arista.MD]

I talked to an ad com person at Stanford. She also told me that if she perceives that the applicant is not "disadvantaged" during the interview, she will basically trash the application. She said that's better to apply as a regular candidate and then show that what your background and circumstances are, and let the ad com decide where to place you.

Maybe not all ad coms are like the Stanford one.

 

[Eraserhead]

Well here's the definition taken from the UC Davis app. I highly doubt that someone would "trash" an application unless the applicant provided false information.

*Note: A socio-economically disadvantaged applicant is one who, from an early age, resided in a low-income community or experienced enduring family and/or societal hardship that significantly compromised educational opportunities. This definition is suggested by the American Medical College Application Service(AMCAS).

 

[Neuronix]

I sort of agree with what dana-doc and the op are saying. Don't say you're disadvantaged unless some seriously screwed up stuff, such as extreme fanancial hardship or other crazy factors, happened to you. Even then, it's not going to help you too much. I did apply disadvantaged and I did have a very screwed up background, but regardless that came out in my personal statement and essays and didn't even require me to check that disadvantaged box. I'm honestly not sure that the disadvantaged section of the primary will help you, but it could certainly hurt you.

Believe me, the disadvantaged card might help a bit, but not a great deal. I did work extra-hard as an undergrad. My disadvantaged status got me into Penn, but I still had acceptances at other great schools that didn't even pay any attention to my disadvantaged status. I'm pretty sure some schools that didn't bother to interview me or did interview me and didn't mention my background didn't care one bit about it.

 

[voltron77]

DoctorKevin makes a good point, as I applied as "disadvantged" and also finished the UC Davis secondary application. I have always been led to believe in the definition of "disadvantaged" that AMCAS has on its website. Thanks for making that clear DoctorKevin!!!

 

[Anka]

I applied disadvantaged b/c my dad got sick enough that I had to leave high school before graduating to work full time. Darn, now I'm all nervous about what dana-doc said.

 

[Eraserhead]

I've been through this so many times, calling offices and asking questions on here, and people always challenge the definition and seem to imply that I am looking for an advantage in the admissions process when in fact I am not. Its frustrating to read such a comment about a school like Stanford, I did not actually call all of the schools I applied to and I would hate to see my application to Stanford thrown in the trash for such a ridiculous reason.

I hope that dana-doc's ad comm member was talking about people misrepresenting their situation or lying... I mean that would make sense to me, but throwing my application in the trash and my 75 dollars simply because I gave them more information about me would not be fair to me. Of course, knowing this information, I will probably discuss my motivations for applying disadvantaged in all of my interviews since I am somewhat concerned now.

 

[Eraserhead]

It would be helpful for me if people who DID apply disadvantaged PMed me with information about where they interviewed and how much time was spent discussing their family/economic situation (if any). My guess is that 90% of my interviewers won't care very much, but I'd like to know how much data to bring and how much I will need to prepare to defend my claims.

 

[Anka]

So true, Dr. K, so true.

 

[peterockduke]

personally, I just told the dean of premeds about my life - i feel it's better for her to discuss the negative social aspects then for me to try it....

otherwise i have only forwarded economic hardship statements..

Honestly, I don't know how you can tactfully address social hardships in an essay that is suppossed to be why you want to be a doc etc. You can tie it in, but it really is unusually difficult. I don't think anyone wants to sound like a victim.

I think if an adcom thinks you're lying than you're toast. I'd rather it be on the application in different areas so that I don't have to talk about it at all.

Thanks DrKevin for the definition. *Note: A socio-economically disadvantaged applicant is one who, from an early age, resided in a low-income community or experienced enduring family and/or societal hardship that significantly compromised educational opportunities. This definition is suggested by the American Medical College Application Service(AMCAS).

 

[Arista.MD]

Ok, don't freak out over this, many schools, like the UCs, look at your application and want you to write an essays about why you feel that you are disadvantaged. If you in fact are disadvantaged, this will definetly show up on your application and secondaries. What I can say is when they ask you how many jobs you had during college, and how many hours you worked a week, they ask you because they want to know what factors affected your education. They also ask you about your family, how much money they made, etc. So if you are disadvantaged, it will show up on the application. The problem with schools like Stanford is that I don't think they really care, since they don't take into account too much your disadvantaged status. I talked to this person on the adcom because she is a friend of a friend and we met at dinner at my friends house. And she told me that this is what she does, so I guess that it also depends on the person that looks at the application.
Please don't stress out, there is already so much stress in this process, don't make it worse.

 

[Eraserhead]

Hey, I'm trying not to stress out, but when someone tells me my application might be thrown in the TRASH for what doesn't sound like a solid reason its pretty damn stressful.

 

[Arista.MD]

Many times in life your fate is decided by people that don't know you at all, and there is nothing that you can do to change the outcome because you have no control over those people deciding your fate. So really it is not worth stressing about this.

 

[SpiritiualDuck]

this just gets more confusing. The idea of trashing someone's app. seems bizarre, extreme. I can see not judging them as truly disadvantaged, but by AMCAS definition that does open it up quite a bit.

Are we just parse things up so much that it's becoming neurotic?

I'd really like to know how students that applied as disadvantaged students were treated? How did they address it in your interview? Did it hurt or help you, in your opinion?

DrKevin don't worry. I'm sure that your application is fine.

 

[Eraserhead]

Yes, I would like to know about interview experiences, and I'm not really worried per se, I know myself very well, but I'm just thinking about what information I need to have at my fingertips on the 30th during my first interview. And what I can expect.... I know they are going to ask me why I want to be a doctor so I should also know if they are going to ask me to list 10 ways my financial hardship affected my education....

Did anyone get interragated after applying disadvantaged.... Did you go home thinking, **** why did I apply disadvantaged?

Or did it really not affect your interview at all besides a 10-20 minute discussion about your family background?

 

[Mistress S]

Great responses so far...I will probably apply as disadvantaged next year. My numbers are not sub-par, my GPA is well above average for accepted applicants and I think my EC's are competitive (still waiting on aug MCAT though), so my reason for applying disadvantaged would not be to compensate for deficiencies in my app. Med schools say they care about this; I imagine it won't make much difference, although like many others on this board I am curious about the experience of other applicants who applied disadvantaged, especially if this could negatively affect your app in any way. In my case, I feel like it might make things easier in terms of interviewing if I apply disadvantaged--I've heard that many interviews involve questions about your family, childhood, etc., and what am I going to say, when I spent most of my childhood in foster homes, group homes, living with various relatives, etc? I would prefer to write about it in my app, and let them decide how to approach it, rather than either lying about it in an interview like I am ashamed of my background (which I'm not) or having to spring it on them then. Also, I am proud of what I have accomplished despite difficult circumstances, and I think my acheivements are best viewed in light of my background, which in my experience so far is an unusual one among premeds.

A related question--on the AMCAS question that asks about "average household income" while you were growing up, I am very confused about how to answer this. I grew up in a number of different households/institutions, many of which I have no idea what the "income" was. When I lived with my mom, the household income varied greatly depending on whether or not she was married, and to which husband. I couldn't begin to give an "average" for this. I know there is an "unsure" option, but I have heard that the income part is a big deal for most schools to determine if you were disadvantaged or not, so I am afraid if I mark "unsure" it will make some schools skeptical. I may have to call AMCAS for advice on this later, but if anyone else has dealt with a similar situation and knows how to handle this I would love to hear from them.

 

[kmnfive]

it all sounds like complaining to me.

not to say that it is impossible to consider the possibility of a diffilcult situation; in this case, a person who has gone through some sticky things throughout their college life.

but unless your parents make poverty-level income, or if you only have one eye, telling med schools you have a hard time coping with lifes inconsistancies is just BULL$HIT. excuse my crude sarcasm.

i dont understand how low people are stooping in order to get into med school.

 

[Eraserhead]

Sigh..... I was indeed below the poverty level for my family size, officially (looking at records in front of me) for a majority of my childhood and teen years.

That's low my friend, applying disadvantaged is not.

Debate aside, does anyone have interview experiences to share? Anyone with a similar family situation perhaps to myself or Mistress S or others?

 

[Eraserhead]

For those curious, here's the federal data:

http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/health_care/pdf/2003_FED_POVERTY_LEVEL.pdf

 

[AJM]

Originally posted by dana-doc
I talked to an ad com person at Stanford. She also told me that if she perceives that the applicant is not "disadvantaged" during the interview, she will basically trash the application. She said that's better to apply as a regular candidate and then show that what your background and circumstances are, and let the ad com decide where to place you.

Maybe not all ad coms are like the Stanford one.

Originally posted by dana-doc
The problem with schools like Stanford is that I don't think they really care, since they don't take into account too much your disadvantaged status. I talked to this person on the adcom because she is a friend of a friend and we met at dinner at my friends house. And she told me that this is what she does, so I guess that it also depends on the person that looks at the application.

😕 I'm not sure which ad com member you spoke with about this, but that is certainly not true. I was an ad com member at Stanford several years ago under the same Dean of Admissions that is currently there, and that was definitely not how things were done. I can't imagine that they changed things to how you describe now, because Dr. Garcia, the Dean of Admissions, is a huge advocate of disadvantaged students.

Stanford is well known for placing a great deal of weight on an applicant's disadvantaged status. They definitely take it into account, and consider whether someone would qualify as disadvantaged on every application that comes through, whether or not the applicant requests disadvantaged status. Granted, some disadvantaged applicants who apply as regular candidates may slip through the cracks and miss the disadvantaged designation even if they clearly are disadvantaged.

If you request disadvantaged status on Stanford's application, the reviewers of the application have to confirm whether they agree that you should have special consideration. There's a checklist/point system that accompanies every application in which disadvantaged status was requested, that the reviewer has to fill out. The criteria on that point system is used to either agree or disagree about whether an applicant should fall in that category. It includes things like if English is your second language you get X number of points, if you had to work full time in college you get Y number of points, if you grew up in an impoverished neighborhood you get Z number of points, etc. If you get a certain number of points, then you qualify. There are a number of ways to qualify for disadvantaged status, however you will most likely need to demonstrate more than one or two hardships. If the ad com disagrees with you, and feels that you don't qualify for this status, your application is not thrown out. What is thrown out is the flag on your application designating you as disadvantaged, and your application would then be placed with the regular pool of applicants.

Claiming disadvantaged status on your Stanford application and then not qualifying is not necessarily a bad thing. However keep in mind that if you have a pretty weak reason or argument why you are disadvantaged, it could negatively affect your application. The application reviewers could potentially think that you are trying to get benefits that you know you don't truly qualify for, and that could cause them to mark down your application (depending on the reviewer).

Hope that helps. Sorry for the long explanation!

 

[Lab-Rat21]

Only apply disadvantaged if you have severe economic or social problems. If you get the AMCAS fee waiver it is a way to verify that you received disadvantaged consideration. Also, if you have severe problems that affected your education it is OK to mention them. Each application is considered separately, as long as your numbers are at least average acceptable, then OK.

Do not be ashamed of applying disadvantaged, you do not choose what family you are born into, what income (as a child) your parents earn, or what problems affected you. If you choose to check the box, know it is there for a reason, if you choose not to, knowing you probably qualify, again it is there for a reason.

All the haters can say "you just want an advantage or an edge." Whatever, as long as you can back up your disadvantaged status (economic or whatever) in an interview, YOU will be OK. I'd imagine people would be happy THEY didn't have troubles in their own lives, instead of putting down already disadvantaged applicants...do not read false advice and threats. Karma is a bitch and she'll get you haters eventually. PM me if you need more info on applying disadvantaged.

Peace, done with this thread.

 

[Eraserhead]

Thanks to both of you for the information, it was very helpful and non-biased which was a relief.