So let's say that after spending my whole life through dental school in Buffalo, I decide that I've had enough of the bad economy and crappy winters. I want to do my residency in Miami, and I want to practice in Florida because I spent some breaks and vacations there growing up, have lots of close friends there, and know it's where I want to live. I apply to residency and tell Miami honestly they are my #1. You also apply to Miami, but you are married and already live there and want to stay after residency. If we're both qualified, you get the spot because you're married and beat me to moving there? That's just discrimination to the single person. The best candidate willing to give the residency 200% should get the spot, not the one whose life will be more convenient.
How is this any different from having 2 equally qualified candidates for OMFS, but picking the single male over the married female because the female might decide to have a kid and wreak havoc on the entire residency schedule? No matter how much she insists in her interview she is 100% about OMS residency for the next 6 years, she loses behind closed doors when the adcom decides because of her lifestyle?
I know it goes on although it is technically illegal to ask your marital status in interviews.
Sorry, but like I said, you are wrong on this one. Subjective assessment of personal issues is absolutely fair game in deciding admissions. In fact, there are very few OBJECTIVE factors that ADCOMs even have at their disposal: Nationally Standardized Test Scores are really the only one. Even GPA and class rank aren't truly objective because there is no way to standardize them nationally.
So, it is NOT discrimination against single, out of state applicants to consider an equally qualified married person's existing family ties to the given area when making a final admissions decision.
Examples of other SUBJECTIVE (and therefore "unfair" admissions criteria):
1) Letters of Recommedations (no way to standardize this one)
2) Community Service (how could we directly compare the relative value of disparate types of community service)
3) Student Government Activity (what objective calculus can be applied here to empirically assess different candidates involved in similar, but different roles in Student Government?)
4) Externships (Different places, different involvement levels, different experience obtained - impossible to "fairly" compare between 2 candidates)
Note that #1-4 are absolutely mainstream admissions criteria and are assumed to be fair in assessing an applicant's qualifications. But they are NOT quantifiable. Therefore they are "unfair" in the strictist sense.
Being married and having strong ties to an area is likewise NOT quantifiable, and therefore could be characterized as "unfair". But then we would also have to rule out #1-4 above in assessing our candidates. So, it is quite obviously foolish to say that unempirical aspects of a candidate's application, personality, and family situation are off-limits to ADCOMS.
More importantly, its quite arrogant and ethnocentric to treat the OP (godbless) as if she is unreasonable for having a strong desire to complete her Advanced Standing program in the same city where she and her familiy are living.
Thanks for showing, though. . .