applying as a fake minority

[redlight]

But that is not the main purpose of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a policy to counter systemic opression and help opressed peoples reach positions of power. Not just racial opression, but gender opression, sexual preference, etc. To this day, the group that has benefitted most from affirmative action has been caucasian women. But I think since African Americans have been the most vocal proponents of affirmative action there is a collective misconception that its a racial thing when it's not. Please don't perpetuate the misconception.

i keep hearing this, but it's odd to think of white women as URM when about half of all med school applicants are women (and probably about half of all white applicants are women too, but i don't have data to back this..). i understand there are other reasons why they are considered URMs or disadvantaged but i'm just throwing that out there.

question:
isn't AA supposed to basically help everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, middle to upper class male?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[redlight]

Yo man, nearly 1/3 of URM students enroll at an HBCU, puerto rican school etc., so of course the #s are going to be lower. Look at the average MCAT/GPA for the HBCUs and Puerto Rican schools... 24/3.3 maybe? The URm students at other sschools have stats that are comparable to the national average.

As far as homegirl that got into UCSF. If they admitted a girl with a 3.3 and a 27, i'm pretty sure there was something compelling about her application that allowed her to fill the niche that UCSF was looking to fill. UCSF can easily have an average of 35/3.9, but they dont'. Why? Just read their mission statement. They want a diverse class in every way, academically, ethnically, demographically, interest in a specialty-ically, etc.

you (addressing general audience) have to realize that means and medians do not paint accurate pictures of large group dynamics.

i wanted to post something like this in response to the person who pulled out national mcat averages by race.

i think a good number of african american premeds kind of settle for lower than average mcat scores and gpa (or i could say they are accepted with lower scores) because the schools they are mostly looking at (hbcu, caribbean, etc.) are more willing to hand out acceptances to african americans or other minorities for X reasons. i don't have data to support these claims (but i'm pretty sure it's out there) so i was a little hesitant to post my thoughts before.

also i remember reading (i believe in the msar) somewhere that only a handful of hbcu med schools have graduated something like 3/4 of all black physicians in this country. if those schools have mcat/gpa means lower than national averages, it would help explain the gap between scores betweens blacks and other races. im personally not too pleased with the disparity and it seems as though schools who accept students with lower scores are perpetuating this disparity by not providing enough incentives for students to want to score higher... i'm not sure if my logic is making sense (haha, it's like 5:30 in the morn) but these are my thoughts!


and about the ucsf girl-- i agree w/ flaahless.
you'd be crazy to think her minority status is the reason she got accepted. her scores are low for ucsf, but it makes zero sense to believe that adcoms saw her race and thought "yea, we need some more african americans-- she'll do!" idk why she got admitted, but it probably cannot be isolated to one or two things. they obviously think she'll be able to handle the rigor of their medical school and they must have seen somethings in her application that made them really interested in her. yes, my argument is a bit cliched but that's all i can think of given only an mcat and gpa.

 

[LizzyM]

i keep hearing this, but it's odd to think of white women as URM when about half of all med school applicants are women (and probably about half of all white applicants are women too, but i don't have data to back this..). i understand there are other reasons why they are considered URMs or disadvantaged but i'm just throwing that out there.

question:
isn't AA supposed to basically help everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, middle to upper class male?

Looking back, way back(45-55 yrs ago), you'll see that women were underrepresented. One friend of mine attended a medical school with 7 other women (in a class >100), and someone recently told me that he had 2 women in a class of 80. That didn't really change until the 1970s and beyond.

 

[ChiDoc27]

Women are still underrepresented in many residency fields. Take neurosurgery for example: In the 2006 match, only 12% of students matched into neurosurg were women.

 

[Pedsonchopeful]

Women are still underrepresented in many residency fields. Take neurosurgery for example: In the 2006 match, only 12% of students matched into neurosurg were women.

This is such a bad argument without concrete data. It is possible that only 12% of women med school grads wanted to go into neurosurgery in which case saying they're underrepresented is incorrect.

 

[LizzyM]

This is such a bad argument without concrete data. It is possible that only 12% of women med school grads wanted to go into neurosurgery in which case saying they're underrepresented is incorrect.

"Underrepresented" usually means that the proportion in the profession (or specialty) is less than the proportion in the broader population. Today about 50% of medical school graduates are female yet (if it is true that) only 12% of those going into neurosurgery are female.

Is this because there are barriers (including an unwelcoming attitide from attending neursurgeons) that keep women out of neurosurgery or are women self-selecting away from that specialty and into specialties that require shorter training periods, better hours (think ROAD), etc? We don't have enough information to say why women choose no to go into neurosurgery and I think that it is up to the neurosurgery community to do some soul searching and determine that the under enrollment of women is not due to biases against female candidates for residency.

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

But that's not the AMCAS definition, so why is this relevant? You can apply as a URM even if your parents are millionaires.

And "unimaginable and insurmountable odds"? Let's not be melodramatic here.

Yeah, especially considering that in that example, they overcame those odds. So wouldn't those be "surmountable odds?"

 

[scarletgirl777]

Rightly or wrongly, people don't see all URMs the same way. Perhaps the interviewer who meets the Black person with blond hair and blue eyes (and they do exist, see Thurgood Marshall's father), they may think, yeah, this person is Black, but how Black are they? Is his or her life affected the same way as a dark-skinned Black person with more stereotypically African features? I think people are going to see people who conform more to the typical idea of what their racial category is and therefore who presumably suffer to a greater extent because of it in a different light than mixed people or so-called white Hispanics.

 

[BruceBanner]

I think using URM as a way to push yourself in front of others and get into medical school is just as unethical.

I agree.

Like it or not, URMs with comparable stats to non-URMs do get some preference purely based on that status. Im sure it varies by school, but IMO it's pretty subjective and basically amounts to an unfair advantage to "minority" applicants, or those who can bull**** their way into that label.

It's a dog-eat-dog world.

 

[wutwinb]

Rightly or wrongly, people don't see all URMs the same way. Perhaps the interviewer who meets the Black person with blond hair and blue eyes (and they do exist, see Thurgood Marshall's father), they may think, yeah, this person is Black, but how Black are they? Is his or her life affected the same way as a dark-skinned Black person with more stereotypically African features? I think people are going to see people who conform more to the typical idea of what their racial category is and therefore who presumably suffer to a greater extent because of it in a different light than mixed people or so-called white Hispanics.

hmm, I really have to disagree with this. I think, that if someone is ANY part Black, the "one drop rule" pretty much applies even in our day and age. I'm mixed, and I identify as 'multiracial' as opposed to 'black'. I know that even though I'm mixed, the interviewers, my colleagues, and patients will all view me as a 'black' doctor, and just the way it's going to be. That's perfectly fine with me because what matters to me is how I self-identify. In my experience with mixed people (and I have a lot...), no matter how light/dark/tan/whatever you are; you are still considered black by society. "Black" in America isn't just the darkness of your skin, hair, eyes, etc. This might differ for other kinds of minorities, but I can't speak for them .

 

[arsenewenger]

They should get rid of affirmative action completely.

Affirmative action isn't fair; it doesn't work for people who actually need it. Even though I grew up in a poor, crime-infested neighborhood, going to bad schools with large Hispanic and black populations, I was competing against other Asians who went to premium schools with great, or at least better, educational programs in neighborhoods where there weren't robberies or shootings. I also happen to know a black girl whose parents are both physicians, who sent her to wonderful schools, and now she is going to one of the top medical schools.

Exactly the reason why Affirmative Action was created, to level the playing field. As you correctly pointed out, "she is going to one of the top medical schools" on merit due to the fact that she was able to attend good schools; her parents might have gotten in via AA, she was accepted on merit.Very soon and in the not so distant future, Blacks will be able to compete with Whites in a fair and honest manner and Affirmative Action would by then be a thing of the past, not because it has not worked, but because it would no longer be necessary. The key word here is "disadvantaged."

 

[Tired Pigeon]

I think part of the role of a med school adcom is to select a class of future docs that, collectively, will serve the needs of society. There are URM patient populations that are grossly underserved; if URM docs are more likely, on average, to practice in a capacity that addresses this need (I believe there is data to support this, but don't have a reference at hand), their URM status is a legitimate consideration in the admissions decision. This part of the argument has nothing to do with affirmative action or attempting to correct past injustices - it is simply a pragmatic attempt to fill a major hole in our medical care system. I think preference is often given to rural applicants for the similar reason that rural communities are often underserved and applicants from a rural background are, on average, more likely to practice there.

 

[skyeblue0610]

Now exactly HOW would one pretend to be a minority in order to get ahead AAMC clearly explains what they consider to be a minority....I don't even want to think that people would do some extra, hardcore tanning or take a hardcore Spanish class, etc to pull that off

There is no way to fake it. Once you get an interview the jig is up and in come major trouble

 

[TheSky]

Exactly the reason why Affirmative Action was created, to level the playing field. As you correctly pointed out, "she is going to one of the top medical schools" on merit due to the fact that she was able to attend good schools; her parents might have gotten in via AA, she was accepted on merit.Very soon and in the not so distant future, Blacks will be able to compete with Whites in a fair and honest manner and Affirmative Action would by then be a thing of the past, not because it has not worked, but because it would no longer be necessary. The key word here is "disadvantaged."

Yes, I realized why it was created, but the point is that the way it was created is unfair, because it gives unfair advantages to people who may not need them, i.e. who are not disadvantaged, while skipping over the people who are disadvantaged, (and of course advantages to people who need them); that girl may have had merit to get into a top 15 school, but because of her race, she got into a top 5 school. We can't tell,but what difference does it make to the admissions committee? They see black, they automatically think disadvantaged, they accept.

I think part of the role of a med school adcom is to select a class of future docs that, collectively, will serve the needs of society. There are URM patient populations that are grossly underserved; if URM docs are more likely, on average, to practice in a capacity that addresses this need (I believe there is data to support this, but don't have a reference at hand), their URM status is a legitimate consideration in the admissions decision. This part of the argument has nothing to do with affirmative action or attempting to correct past injustices - it is simply a pragmatic attempt to fill a major hole in our medical care system. I think preference is often given to rural applicants for the similar reason that rural communities are often underserved and applicants from a rural background are, on average, more likely to practice there.

I can see the rural thing, but do blacks really go to primarily black docs (i.e. do most people stick to docs of their own race)? As an Asian, I have, in my lifetime, only seen one Asian doctor, even though there are tons of Asian docs around and I've had tons of doc appointments. That was never a consideration for me or my family. Other factors, such as location, were always more important in choosing a doctor. I can see why we'd want more, say Hispanic people, in order to bridge language gaps (provided the people they're accepting through affirmative action can actually speak Spanish), but blacks (African-Americans) speak English.

I seem to see two different purposes for affirmative action on this thread and in practical application: 1. for serving different communities, or b. changing the playing field for minorities. 1 is a good reason, but I have problems with 2 because that's what causes affirmative action to skip over people who need it and give unfair advantages to people who may not need them (for instance, IF that rich black girl was given an advantage, though I don't know her scores so I don't know if she was given an advantage).

Anyway, I think affirmative action is inherently unfair, because there actually do exist dirt-poor Asians/whites/etc. who struggled just as hard, and who may not be looked upon in the same manner as a black because of skin color. (And apparently we have not crossed the skin color bridge even though it's 2008.)

I know people will take issue with what I say but I think affirmative action just has too many holes and we'll probably just go round and round in circles, fruitlessly, about affirmative action so I'm going to make this my last post on this thread. (And I'm really not one for arguing, that's why I didn't become a lawyer or politician lol.)

 

[flaahless]

Yes, I realized why it was created, but the point is that the way it was created is unfair, because it gives unfair advantages to people who may not need them, i.e. who are not disadvantaged, while skipping over the people who are disadvantaged, (and of course advantages to people who need them); that girl may have had merit to get into a top 15 school, but because of her race, she got into a top 5 school. We can't tell,but what difference does it make to the admissions committee? They see black, they automatically think disadvantaged, they accept.

And your data for this is where? AAMC does not post stats concerning disadvantaged status, so your assumption is pure conjecture. I would love for the AAMC to publish this information so we can see exactly how each school considers disadvantaged students.

Secondly, you're still looking at AA from a racial standpoint. Please broaden your persspective. Some people of color are disadvantaged, some aren't. Some ORMs are disadvantaged, some aren't. But I doubt anyone automatically sees an African American person and assumes they must have been disadvantaged. If that occurs, then that person has some internal social and cultural issues that they should deal with.

I can see the rural thing, but do blacks really go to primarily black docs (i.e. do most people stick to docs of their own race)? As an Asian, I have, in my lifetime, only seen one Asian doctor, even though there are tons of Asian docs around and I've had tons of doc appointments. That was never a consideration for me or my family. Other factors, such as location, were always more important in choosing a doctor. I can see why we'd want more, say Hispanic people, in order to bridge language gaps (provided the people they're accepting through affirmative action can actually speak Spanish), but blacks (African-Americans) speak English.

There are many language gaps other than spanish-english. Geography, economic status, culture etc. all contribute to language gaps within the English language. I am almost certain that it will be easier for me to communicate with African American patients at LA Couty+USC Hospital that it would be for you.

I seem to see two different purposes for affirmative action on this thread and in practical application: 1. for serving different communities, or b. changing the playing field for minorities. 1 is a good reason, but I have problems with 2 because that's what causes affirmative action to skip over people who need it and give unfair advantages to people who may not need them (for instance, IF that rich black girl was given an advantage, though I don't know her scores so I don't know if she was given an advantage).

Anyway, I think affirmative action is inherently unfair, because there actually do exist dirt-poor Asians/whites/etc. who struggled just as hard, and who may not be looked upon in the same manner as a black because of skin color. (And apparently we have not crossed the skin color bridge even though it's 2008.)

I know people will take issue with what I say but I think affirmative action just has too many holes and we'll probably just go round and round in circles, fruitlessly, about affirmative action so I'm going to make this my last post on this thread. (And I'm really not one for arguing, that's why I didn't become a lawyer or politician lol.)

You keep talking about the rich black girl. But if you don't know what she experienced, then your speculations for why she got in are all conjecture and invalid. You have no idea why she appealed to a particular school.

Med school classes are a tricky thing to put together. I am almost certain that any school could fill their entire incoming class with Ivy League students with 32/3.7. But they don't, why? Because they want diversity in the class. They want some URMs and some ORMs, rich kids and some poor kids, some old students, some young ones, liberal vs. conservative, heterosexual vs. homosexual, Montagues vs. Capulets etc.

The "rich black girl" may have filled a niche that they school was looking for.

And you're right, there are some dirt poor ORMs, and there is a disadvantaged section, a personal statement, and some secondary essays for them to tell their stories. However, since AAMC does not publish this data, you can't assume that struggling ORMs are being overlooked for the "rich black girl with low stats."

 

[G8rDan]

I am almost certain that it will be easier for me to communicate with African American patients at LA Couty+USC Hospital that it would be for you.

Do blacks not speak English? Honestly now, let's not call the difference between Ebonics and proper English a language barrier.

 

[flaahless]

Do blacks not speak English? Honestly now, let's not call the difference between Ebonics and proper English a language barrier.

Communication is much more than speaking.

EDIT: Also, I never said language barrier, I said gap.

 

[bellacnella]

Even as a pre-med, I saw time and time again how Black patients are treated differently than White ones... the same goes for Hispanic...why won't you guys let this ****ty debate die?

Mods: Why is this thread still here?

 

[dancinRN1022]

Yes, I realized why it was created, but the point is that the way it was created is unfair, because it gives unfair advantages to people who may not need them, i.e. who are not disadvantaged, while skipping over the people who are disadvantaged, (and of course advantages to people who need them); that girl may have had merit to get into a top 15 school, but because of her race, she got into a top 5 school. We can't tell,but what difference does it make to the admissions committee? They see black, they automatically think disadvantaged, they accept.

Do you really believe this??? then y do most med schools only have at most 5- 10 African american students.... even the ones that are really great at diversity like harvard / duke/ FSU/ cornell have at most 12- 14 percent african amercian students but those are only a handful... there are plenty of African American students that don't get accepted to any medical school...the percentage is the same.... according to the aamc...approx. 2000 black students applied last year with approx. 1000 matriculating at a school... of those numbers 200 of them were at one of the hbcu's... being a minority doesn't guarantee you a seat...

pretending to be a minority is silly...someone said it earlier... if there are 100 ppl in a class 5 being black...31 being asian...and 60 being white...y would u choose to be anything other than white???

bella is right... i felt like i had to respond... but i thought affirmative action threads were not allowed anymore...

 

[BlackDr2b]

Can we please move past this same topic? This is ridiculous and silly. It is very silly to apply as a fake minority. It doesn't even sound right. God bless.

 

[redlight]

I can see the rural thing, but do blacks really go to primarily black docs (i.e. do most people stick to docs of their own race)? As an Asian, I have, in my lifetime, only seen one Asian doctor, even though there are tons of Asian docs around and I've had tons of doc appointments. That was never a consideration for me or my family. Other factors, such as location, were always more important in choosing a doctor. I can see why we'd want more, say Hispanic people, in order to bridge language gaps (provided the people they're accepting through affirmative action can actually speak Spanish), but blacks (African-Americans) speak English.

it's not that blacks seek black doctor's; it's that black doctors are more likely to practice in underserved communities (which tend to have many minorities) than whites/asians etc. as someone stated earlier, these communities are causing a sever strain on the healthcare system so the more docs that practice in such places, the better the chances are of meeting healthcare needs of the community and lessening the overall strain on the healthcare system in the country as a whole. similarly, docs from rural areas are more likely to go and practice where they came from or other rural areas-which i believe are considered underserved as well- and meet the healthcare needs of these rural communities.

and many may be tired of these threads (which is fine, i guess) but i think as long as the conversation is civil, theres a good chance some people will learn something new or some misconceptions will be cleared up.

 

[scarletgirl777]

hmm, I really have to disagree with this. I think, that if someone is ANY part Black, the "one drop rule" pretty much applies even in our day and age. I'm mixed, and I identify as 'multiracial' as opposed to 'black'. I know that even though I'm mixed, the interviewers, my colleagues, and patients will all view me as a 'black' doctor, and just the way it's going to be. That's perfectly fine with me because what matters to me is how I self-identify. In my experience with mixed people (and I have a lot...), no matter how light/dark/tan/whatever you are; you are still considered black by society. "Black" in America isn't just the darkness of your skin, hair, eyes, etc. This might differ for other kinds of minorities, but I can't speak for them .

Obviously, there is a one-drop rule in effect, but as a dark-skinned Black person, I have interacted with white people who have felt free indicating to me (to my chagrin) that certain light-skinned multiracial people are "less Black." And there is research that shows that we live in a society with a legacy that is not only racist but colorist--that lighter skinned black people have better wealth outcomes than darker skinned Black people. I worked for a professor who was doing work on it. Yes, there is a one-drop rule, but even back when this rule really mattered and was the law, there were light-skinned people that lived apart, and in the times of slavery, the "house slaves" tended to be lighter, so colorism is just as old. If you've ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin, there's a reason that the smarter, more refined protagonists who run away are "mulatto." Not to mention colorism and its role in black sororities.

Obviously, this is a very ugly part of our history that people don't want to talk about and that most people never have to bother to analyze in any academic way...but it is real.

 

[Jack S]

Africa is about 95% black or something like that, but that means about 5% is white. So what if you are from Africa and came to America but you happen to be white? Can you still claim yourself as African American? Many people from Egypt for example would not be considered black but they are still technically African American if they came to the U.S. Also this could apply to Asians too. For example, Russia is in the continent of Asia therefore if you are from Russia and live in the U.S. you could consider yourself Asian-American.

 

[scowdeva]

Africa is about 95% black or something like that, but that means about 5% is white. So what if you are from Africa and came to America but you happen to be white? Can you still claim yourself as African American? Many people from Egypt for example would not be considered black but they are still technically African American if they came to the U.S. Also this could apply to Asians too. For example, Russia is in the continent of Asia therefore if you are from Russia and live in the U.S. you could consider yourself Asian-American.

This argument is pointless. The phrase 'African American' is known and understood to mean black. It is what is commonly considered to be the politically correct term to describe a black person...and why base any kind of argument on 5% of a continent's population. It's arguing semantics. It's playing on a word technicality. You know what the term is referring to, I know what the term is referring to, everyone gets what the term is referring to. Trying to bend it to serve one's purpose is manipulation, and I doubt would be looked upon in a positive light. Let this one go.

 

[ruhler]

So you are saying that an African American albino is not considered African American because he is not black???

This whole thread is ridiculous.

 

[SamusLives]

Sometimes I get asked my "race"...usually I'll answer Mexican. There's nothing funnier than having a "white" person correct me, saying "No, your Hispanic or Latino". LOL, I was actually born in Mexico. I get the question a lot b/c I'm very light skinned and have light brown hair (I didn't inherent the hazel eyes though); I'm fluent in Spanish, though no interviewer ever "tested" me.

Anyway, these distinctions are silly. I wouldn't have gotten into medical school without a good MCAT and GPA.

Besides, I know two brothers who are half Irish/Hispanic. One is white, freckled, blue-eyed, and red-haired. The other is dark skinned, dark haired, and blue-eyed. You would not believe they are brothers. Can they both claim they are hispanic? Or just the dark skinned one? Like I said, this is all silly.

 

[Green Penguin]

This argument is pointless. The phrase 'African American' is known and understood to mean black. It is what is commonly considered to be the politically correct term to describe a black person...and why base any kind of argument on 5% of a continent's population. It's arguing semantics. It's playing on a word technicality. You know what the term is referring to, I know what the term is referring to, everyone gets what the term is referring to. Trying to bend it to serve one's purpose is manipulation, and I doubt would be looked upon in a positive light. Let this one go.

It doesn't matter that the common meaning in the US is understood. If you want black applicants you shouldn't mince your words and say "African-American" and then look down on the South African or Egyptian/Moroccan applicant who marked "African-American" on their app. If AMCAS wants to make the box "African-American" to be politically correct, Egyptians should be able to check the box to be technically correct. It's not fair to let AMCAS mince words but not applicants. They should be straightforward and have the box say "Black". There's nothing wrong with black, it's not derogatory, it is clear and concise.

Further, if AMCAS wants ONLY those applicants who have been culturally immersed in their respective ethnicity, they should ask for that, rather than simply asking applicants to identify themselves as a particular race. Applicants should not have to interpret the meaning of the question, it should be explicit. Otherwise, I don't think you can fault the white, affluent applicant whose parents were born in Cuba for marking Cuban. Ad-coms can decide for themselves how much of an effect they think an individual's race has had on them. The disadvantaged box is for disadvantaged. The race box is for race. They are separate for a reason, checking the URM box without checking the disadvantaged box does not imply a disadvantaged URM, ad-coms can figure that out. Essays and interviews will elucidate the rest.

$0.02

 

[funklab]

It doesn't matter that the common meaning in the US is understood. If you want black applicants you shouldn't mince your words and say "African-American" and then look down on the South African or Egyptian/Moroccan applicant who marked "African-American" on their app. If AMCAS wants to make the box "African-American" to be politically correct, Egyptians should be able to check the box to be technically correct. It's not fair to let AMCAS mince words but not applicants. They should be straightforward and have the box say "Black". There's nothing wrong with black, it's not derogatory, it is clear and concise.

I agree. Isnt it generally accepted that the human race began in Africa? In that case any person who considers themselves human would have the right to check the african-american box.

 

[aixoise]

karma. if you lie on your app (BAD IDEA!!!!) it will come back to bite you in the ass.

 

[TamarMD]

Not all blacks speak english.