Are acceptances for minorities really that skewed?

[Narmerguy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't think anyone here (even the occassionally truly incorrect mdformee) resents urm doctors existing, or at least they haven't said so. There is a disagreement with the processes that include race as a factor.

I think every one just wants a fair shot. There are some who think the only chance of a fair shot is urm advantage to counter historical lack of a fair shot. And, there are some who think think a fair shot is going color blind in admissions.

I dug ditches last week at my construction job, I'm just happy I made it in because I hated my old life. I'm just hoping for the most level shot for eveyone else who wants out of their old lives too. Rejoice in your acceptance, don't let procedural disagreements take away your sense of accomplishments

A fair shot? What's a fair shot? Is the MCAT or GPA a fair measure of performance? Is the differential availability of research and publishing opportunities a fair resource? Is having unpredictable but compelling life events (battling cancer, living in 10 different countries, growing up in multilingual household, becoming homeless for part of teenage years, etc) somehow fairly distributed? Is going to big name "prestigious" schools a fair advantage? Is having parents that are doctors and well versed in the medical world a fair resource for some applicants to have from childhood but not others? Is having money to afford tutors and special classes--not just in college but throughout their education--academically fair?

Let's be real, nothing about the system is fair. The admissions process is not some elaborate system to most fairly select the objectively best doctors. No one can even agree on what an objective measure of doctor quality is! The admissions process is designed to select the kind of doctors that a particular school wants to train. It's up to them. They can give preference to research experience, to primary care or rural aspirations, to place of origin, to volunteering experiences, etc etc. They choose what they want to train, and then they go get it. There is subjectivity and unfairness splashed all over this admissions process. To tolerate the rest and only raise a fuss about one aspect of it involving race is either malicious or delusional.

It's deflating for me that these arguments have not changed in the 7 years that I have been on SDN. I think I remember once writing a post that summarized all the main arguments that will be made in these threads. I can't remember when it was, maybe we should just make another one and copy and paste it into any URM threads so we can be done with these tiresome unproductive threads. It's literally the same crud over and over, and at the end the only "accomplishment" is somehow all of us have less faith in the intelligence of humanity.

 

[deleted480308]

@Narmerguy ,

I agree with you that life and med school admissions are often not fair. I even agree with you that gpa and mcat aren't the direct correlation to med school performance that some people assume (and posted about a study showing such earlier). I even agree with you that the process is filled with subjectivity and that creates for lots of outliers. It practically begs students to pretend they care about research and primary care when very few end up wanting to do those things and that's before the facade of dreaming up ECs that prove you cured deaf campbodian orphans.

That being said, the racially biased system in med school admissions is well documented by the statistics in matriculation and by admission of a number of adcoms on this site. It also happens to be the sole aspect of admissions mentioned in the title of this thread. That is why race, and not the cornocopia, of other issues in admissions is being discussed. As for the discussions of gpa/mcat, those are the main stats everyone compares. It's the first things people put in every WAMC thread and it's the two pieces of info in every chart on the stickied threads of the WAMC forum. GPA is widely variable due to difficulty of degree and grade inflation, so I don't know why we follow it so much but the mcat is pretty coldly subjective and "fair".

There is no need to have "less faith in the intelligence of humanity" because someone noticed that if they change their skin color it can almost double their chances of getting into an MD program.....that's racial discrimination. If you want to say it's ok, then make the argument. But let's not insult each other by pretending it's not a fact.

 

[DermViser]

A fair shot? What's a fair shot? Is the MCAT or GPA a fair measure of performance? Is the differential availability of research and publishing opportunities a fair resource? Is having unpredictable but compelling life events (battling cancer, living in 10 different countries, growing up in multilingual household, becoming homeless for part of teenage years, etc) somehow fairly distributed? Is going to big name "prestigious" schools a fair advantage? Is having parents that are doctors and well versed in the medical world a fair resource for some applicants to have from childhood but not others? Is having money to afford tutors and special classes--not just in college but throughout their education--academically fair?

Let's be real, nothing about the system is fair. The admissions process is not some elaborate system to most fairly select the objectively best doctors. No one can even agree on what an objective measure of doctor quality is! The admissions process is designed to select the kind of doctors that a particular school wants to train. It's up to them. They can give preference to research experience, to primary care or rural aspirations, to place of origin, to volunteering experiences, etc etc. They choose what they want to train, and then they go get it. There is subjectivity and unfairness splashed all over this admissions process. To tolerate the rest and only raise a fuss about one aspect of it involving race is either malicious or delusional.

It's deflating for me that these arguments have not changed in the 7 years that I have been on SDN. I think I remember once writing a post that summarized all the main arguments that will be made in these threads. I can't remember when it was, maybe we should just make another one and copy and paste it into any URM threads so we can be done with these tiresome unproductive threads. It's literally the same crud over and over, and at the end the only "accomplishment" is somehow all of us have less faith in the intelligence of humanity.

Premeds who put their entire self-worth into their undergraduate GPA (science and cumulative) and MCAT scores and who extrapolate how great of a doctor they will be from these metrics, tend to not be very high on the intelligence scale.

That being said I understand the anger. If medical schools are using the tagline that MCAT scores and GPA predict whether or not one will be successful in medical school (usually in MS-1/MS-2), then you can't completely flip that assertion when the skin color of the applicant has changed and say that undergraduate GPA and MCAT scores are not that important.

 

[touchpause13]

One of the only reasons people continue to get butthurt about this is that you can see if someone may have benefited from URM policies. You can't tell if daddy's money had any impact, or if they had a super compelling life story, or a really interesting 1st career. There are so many factors that may have helped contribute to an individual being accepted. It's frustrating that many one this site seem obsessed with one of them

 

[DermViser]

One of the only reasons people continue to get butthurt about this is that you can see if someone may have benefited from URM policies. You can't tell if daddy's money had any impact, or if they had a super compelling life story, or a really interesting 1st career. There are so many factors that may have helped contribute to an individual being accepted. It's frustrating that many one this site seem obsessed with one of them

BINGO. The others are only seen if that person speaks out loud about them.

 

[MDforMee]

I'm not Asian, but I'm curious what you all think about this quote from an Asian political guy in California:

"The Democratic Party is the party using the name of equality and diversity to lower the standard and preventing us from going into higher education," said Kuo, who came with his family from Taiwan when he was 14. "I can't go and tell my kids, 'Hey, because you're Asian you can't get into the school you want,'" he said.

 

[DermViser]

I'm not Asian, but I'm curious what you all think about this quote from an Asian political guy in California:

"The Democratic Party is the party using the name of equality and diversity to lower the standard and preventing us from going into higher education," said Kuo, who came with his family from Taiwan when he was 14. "I can't go and tell my kids, 'Hey, because you're Asian you can't get into the school you want,'" he said.

You're surprised that the Democratic Party is controlled by special interest groups? From 2008 to now, any doubt about that should be gone.

 

[MDforMee]

You're surprised that the Democratic Party is controlled by special interest groups? From 2008 to now, any doubt about that should be gone.

I think that what he's saying is that some democrats who were anti-affirmative action have become pro-affirmative because they're afraid of Asians overtaking higher education (in California, especially).

I'm not going to say where, or for what, but I was involved with a campus committee, recently, and there weren't any Asians on it (the school is over 40% Asian). It was for something big, too.

 

[DermViser]

I think that what he's saying is that some democrats who were anti-affirmative action have become pro-affirmative because they're afraid of Asians overtaking higher education (in California, especially).

I'm not going to say where, or for what, but I was involved with a campus committee, recently, and there weren't any Asians on it (the school is over 40% Asian). It was for something big, too.

This is well-established: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html?_r=0

 

[touchpause13]

You're surprised that the Democratic Party is controlled by special interest groups? From 2008 to now, any doubt about that should be gone.

Both parties are controlled by special interest groups. The only difference is which ones.

 

[DermViser]

Both parties are controlled by special interest groups. The only difference is which ones.

Yes, except Democrats portray themselves in the media as being for the ordinary common man and being the more compassionate party.

 

[cookiemonsters]

A fair shot? What's a fair shot? Is the MCAT or GPA a fair measure of performance? Is the differential availability of research and publishing opportunities a fair resource? Is having unpredictable but compelling life events (battling cancer, living in 10 different countries, growing up in multilingual household, becoming homeless for part of teenage years, etc) somehow fairly distributed? Is going to big name "prestigious" schools a fair advantage? Is having parents that are doctors and well versed in the medical world a fair resource for some applicants to have from childhood but not others? Is having money to afford tutors and special classes--not just in college but throughout their education--academically fair?

These all sound like measures of socioeconomic inequity. One potential idea to stratify disadvantage: have applicants submit parent(s)' tax forms with the AMCAS, and schools can decide whose application deserves to get a 'boost' based on that instead of race. Evaluating a person's achievements in the context of SES is much more practical in my mind than doing so in the context of race.

 

[MDforMee]

This is well-established: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for-their-own-good.html?_r=0

Intersting. Written by an Asian woman, too... the quote at the end is

"The way we treat these children will influence the America we become. If our most renowned schools set implicit quotas for high-achieving Asian-Americans, we are sending a message to all students that hard work and good grades may be a fool’s errand."

Asians shut down affirmative action in California this month even though they're overrepresented by factors of 10 or more in California schools.

LOL at the hugely overrepresented groups not budging an inch if it means keeping fewer of their kids out of good schools. FYI... whites are evenly represented at these schools. Makes you think, doesn't it?

I know you hate me for being a white savior and everything, but still.

 

[DermViser]

Intersting. Written by an Asian woman, too... the quote at the end is

"The way we treat these children will influence the America we become. If our most renowned schools set implicit quotas for high-achieving Asian-Americans, we are sending a message to all students that hard work and good grades may be a fool’s errand."

Asians shut down affirmative action in California this month even though they're overrepresented by factors of 10 or more in California schools.

LOL at the hugely overrepresented groups not budging an inch if it means keeping fewer of their kids out of good schools. FYI... whites are evenly represented at these schools. Makes you think, doesn't it?

The reason that Asians were against the affirmative action policy is bc they don't benefit from those policies, and if reinstituted, they may go back to being accepted in lower numbers. It wasn't until AA was banned in California, that they got to be in huge numbers as they are now.

 

[MDforMee]

The reason that Asians were against the affirmative action policy is bc they don't benefit from those policies, and if reinstituted, they may go back to being accepted in lower numbers. It wasn't until AA was banned in California, that they got to be in huge numbers as they are now.

Do you think that these Asian's opinions about affirmative action are racist?

 

[DermViser]

Do you think that these Asian's opinions about affirmative action are racist?

It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with not getting an advantage. You can bet if affirmative action policies applied to Asians, they would be defending AA to the hilt on the front lines.

 

[Mad Jack]

You're surprised that the Democratic Party is controlled by special interest groups? From 2008 to now, any doubt about that should be gone.

In all fairness, all of American politics is controlled by special interest groups.

Edit: TP beat me to it.

Edited Edit: And you responded.

 

[DermViser]

In all fairness, all of American politics is controlled by special interest groups.

Edit: TP beat me to it.

I agree except, like I just said, "Yes, except Democrats portray themselves in the media as being for the ordinary common man and being the more compassionate party." They're not.

 

[deleted480308]

It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with not getting an advantage. You can bet if affirmative action policies applied to Asians, they would be defending AA to the hilt on the front lines.

not necessarily true....I still advocated against a progressive tax when I was broke. There are some who have principles.

 

[Mad Jack]

I agree except, like I just said, "Yes, except Democrats portray themselves in the media as being for the ordinary common man and being the more compassionate party." They're not.

They both play the "we're for the common man" line. Republicans will say "we represent the blue collar heart of America" while Democrats will say "we want to help Americans from all walks of life" or whatever. It's all BS. The only person a politician represents is themselves. No one honest survives more than one election cycle in D.C.

 

[DermViser]

They both play the "we're for the common man" line. Republicans will say "we represent the blue collar heart of America" while Democrats will say "we want to help Americans from all walks of life" or whatever. It's all BS. The only person a politician represents is themselves. No one honest survives more than one election cycle in D.C.

I don't think Republicans have ever portrayed themselves as the party that "cares for the poor and less fortunate" that Democrats cloak themselves in.

 

[sat0ri]

The trouble is that there is no other reasonably good way to rectify it that we have yet come up with. Getting rid of affirmative action entirely would result in a substantial decline in minority physicians and certainly not help any stereotypes.

Again, the severity of the problem would not mean affirmative action is the ethical choice, that at this level is how we rectify it. I think there are definitely other means of action, if only because affirmative action won't be the cure all for racism. In fact, the majority of minorities won't benefit this because it targets only those in higher education. So there are definitely other ways that are being implemented currently. Whether the should be implemented in conjuction with affirmative action is the question.

I think the point that there is no other way is highly debatable. So, not that it's wrong, but that's a point that would have to be demonstrated. On top of this, you would need to show that it is ethical. You can't do something that is unethical simply because there is no other way. (Which is not to say that it is or isn't ethical, just that that argument alone is not sufficient reason). I can think of a few other ways on the top of my, so I'm a bit skeptical

 

[KnuxNole]

Are you geniuses even cognizant of what I posted, above?

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on affirmative action, and Asians in California black balled an affirmative action re-enactment referendum in California SPECIFICALLY IN HIGHER EDUCATION; both of these things happened within the last month.

Who cares?

It's only doctors, not superheroes lol

 

[deleted480308]

I don't think Republicans have ever portrayed themselves as the party that "cares for the poor and less fortunate" that Democrats cloak themselves in.

I think that's a fair assessment. The dems tend to go, "the gov will take care of you because we care" and repubs lean toward, "gov will leave you alone because we care".......they are both largely liars and use government to make life harder on people and erode their freedoms. Their only difference is how they want to make your life harder and which freedoms they want to infringe upon first

 

[KnuxNole]

Maybe those Asians people should stop crying like babies, and continue to work hard, and keep being awesome. Deal with it.

 

[DermViser]

Maybe those Asians people should stop crying like babies, and continue to work hard, and keep being awesome. Deal with it.

They are. Which is why they are stopping the reinstitution of AA policies, due to the fear of eroding the gains they've made so far, since they don't gain from AA policies.

 

[Mad Jack]

Do you think that these Asian's opinions about affirmative action are racist?

His article completely neglects the validity of any qualities aside from test scores or grades that might lead to candidates being admitted. Many top schools are looking for personality traits that will lead them to be top innovators that are influential personalities in their field. High test scores and grades may make one intelligent, but they certainly provide no guarantee that they have the traits to be an innovator and leader.

 

[sat0ri]

One of the only reasons people continue to get butthurt about this is that you can see if someone may have benefited from URM policies. You can't tell if daddy's money had any impact, or if they had a super compelling life story, or a really interesting 1st career. There are so many factors that may have helped contribute to an individual being accepted. It's frustrating that many one this site seem obsessed with one of them

Actually people are upset with all those other ways as well. Race-based selection is systematic and so it is far easier to talk about is all--so it really shouldn't be that surprising. (Also, this is just wrong: people are very vocal about how you can "buy" you way in with social benefit. For example, see how "butthurt" all those people are who had to work there way through college and suffered because of it).

Finally, I think the topic is convoluted. We all have a basic intuition that has been ingrained in us (if you're part of this generation at least), that the "color of your skin doesn't matter." Apparently for admissions, it does. This might be totally ethical to base decisions on whether someone is white or black (or etc), but I don't think you should castigate people because they have this genuine (and noble even, if you change "doesn't
to "shouldn't) sentiment. So you may be right, but I think you should give people time either way because this is a complicated argument.

 

[sourdoughllama]

The 21st century: A time where even complimenting a demographic group as being intelligent and responsible invokes a knee-jerk response of "that's racist!"

 

[DermViser]

I think that's a fair assessment. The dems tend to go, "the gov will take care of you because we care" and repubs lean toward, "gov will leave you alone because we care".......they are both largely liars and use government to make life harder on people and erode their freedoms. Their only difference is how they want to make your life harder and which freedoms they want to infringe upon first

No Republicans say "govt. will leave you alone" bc govt. entities are known to be a PIA and make things slower.

 

[deleted480308]

No Republicans say "govt. will leave you alone" bc govt. entities are known to be a PIA and make things slower.

the reason repubs say gov should leave us alone is semantics....the point is that they lie just as bad as democrats. They signed the patriot act, internet surveillance, medicare part d, no child left behind and spent like a bunch of sailors with earmarks when they were in charge too

I still carry a R card to try and swing repub primaries more libertarian but I don't trust them

 

[DermViser]

the reason repubs say gov should leave us alone is semantics....the point is that they lie just as bad as democrats. They signed the patriot act, internet surveillance, medicare part d, no child left behind and spent like a bunch of sailors with earmarks when they were in charge too

I still carry a R card to try and swing repub primaries more libertarian but I don't trust them

I'll take them over the Democratic party anyday, that wants more govt. interference in medicine and now the push towards Single-Payer.

 

[deleted480308]

I'll take them over the Democratic party anyday, that wants more govt. interference in medicine and now the push towards Single-Payer.

I agree with you there......sooooooooooooooo much agreement

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, the severity of the problem would not mean affirmative action is the ethical choice, that at this level is how we rectify it. I think there are definitely other means of action, if only because affirmative action won't be the cure all for racism. In fact, the majority of minorities won't benefit this because it targets only those in higher education. So there are definitely other ways that are being implemented currently. Whether the should be implemented in conjuction with affirmative action is the question.

I think the point that there is no other way is highly debatable. So, not that it's wrong, but that's a point that would have to be demonstrated. On top of this, you would need to show that it is ethical. You can't do something that is unethical simply because there is no other way. (Which is not to say that it is or isn't ethical, just that that argument alone is not sufficient reason). I can think of a few other ways on the top of my, so I'm a bit skeptical

My original post was supposed to read that there is "no reasonable good way" not "reasonably good way," as a clarification. I really need to proofread my posts before they go up.

The key word was meant to be reasonable, because there is no reasonable way for a medical school admissions committee to fix all of the problems that have been built over centuries and led to the disadvantages URMs face in their journey to applying to medical school. There are reasonable ways for things to be improved, but literally all of them are outside of the scope and role of a medical admissions committee. Until society decides to fix things, they're doing the best they can to recruit the best group of physicians that they can find to work within their community.

The mission of most medical schools is to provide the best care they can for their community and the country as a whole. AA and hispanic physicians are FAR more likely to work in areas with a disproportionately high minority population. Is a white guy or an Asian kid going to work in Oakland, the South side of Chicago, or the like? Probably not. If you recruit a kid with solid grades from the area in question, will he go back? Maybe, maybe not. He might use it as a ticket to get out- but following up, the AMA has found this to not be the case in general. Given that URMs are far more likely to provide care for those in need of it, it would arguably be unethical to not give them an advantage in admission, as you would not be fulfilling your school's mission and you would be essentially limiting access to care.

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/about/priorities/diversity.aspx

In summary, committees do their best to recruit a diverse group of physicians in the hope that a more diverse physician population will serve a more diverse patient population. They also bring added cultural knowledge to the table (trust me this is important, you'll see some weird things that you'll need a colleague familiar with the culture to explain) which can help with misunderstandings that arise in regard to treatment and care. Test scores do not ensure that a physician will be talented nor that they will serve those in need of care, thus committee members sometimes use extracurriculars, background, and other factors to recruit a batch of students that will best meet the mission of their school.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'll take them over the Democratic party anyday, that wants more govt. interference in medicine and now the push towards Single-Payer.

Hey, in a related issue, how do you feel about bundled payments? I think it might be the beginning of the end, single payer or not, as paying things in a bundle will essentially give hospitals the ability to divvy up the cash as they please, more or less. They'll start off giving the physicians a fair share at first, then dial it back more and more over time as reimbursements continue to fall, until the physician's slice of the pie is but a sliver.

 

[deleted480308]

Hey, in a related issue, how do you feel about bundled payments? I think it might be the beginning of the end, single payer or not, as paying things in a bundle will essentially give hospitals the ability to divvy up the cash as they please, more or less. They'll start off giving the physicians a fair share at first, then dial it back more and more over time as reimbursements continue to fall, until the physician's slice of the pie is but a sliver.

everything about it is bad. but the more the government (and therefore the big business of the hospital groups) gets involved in the process, the worse it will become...

 

[Mad Jack]

Are you geniuses even cognizant of what I posted, above?

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on affirmative action, and Asians in California black balled an affirmative action re-enactment referendum in California SPECIFICALLY IN HIGHER EDUCATION; both of these things happened within the last month.

Looks like now the only thing tougher than being a med student in Cali will be being a white med student in Cali. Why anyone stays there is beyond me.

 

[DermViser]

Hey, in a related issue, how do you feel about bundled payments? I think it might be the beginning of the end, single payer or not, as paying things in a bundle will essentially give hospitals the ability to divvy up the cash as they please, more or less. They'll start off giving the physicians a fair share at first, then dial it back more and more over time as reimbursements continue to fall, until the physician's slice of the pie is but a sliver.

Bundled payments is very much a way to slash payments immensely to providers, no doubt at all. You can bet actual practicing physicians will be losers, unlike say administrators.

 

[DermViser]

Looks like now the only thing tougher than being a med student in Cali will be being a white med student in Cali. Why anyone stays there is beyond me.

Even worse - an Asian premed in Cali.

 

[Mad Jack]

Even worse - an Asian premed in Cali.

If they uphold the California ban on affirmative action in higher education, it'll be fine to be Asian. Golden even. They'll probably make up 60-70% of the entering classes.

 

[DermViser]

If they uphold the California ban on affirmative action in higher education, it'll be fine to be Asian. Golden even. They'll probably make up 60-70% of the entering classes.

Not when they can recruit Asians who are out-of-state.

 

[NontradCA]

If they uphold the California ban on affirmative action in higher education, it'll be fine to be Asian. Golden even. They'll probably make up 60-70% of the entering classes.

No they won't. Med schools will undoubtedly find some other metric or variable to admit x student over y student.

 

[touchpause13]

I don't think Republicans have ever portrayed themselves as the party that "cares for the poor and less fortunate" that Democrats cloak themselves in.

No, Republicans tend to say they are for the common folk.

 

[NontradCA]

No, Republicans tend to say they are for the common folk.

I think that's a new trend. Republicans used to stand for something (lower taxes, capitalism, less government), at least in the public eye. Now they appeal to ignorance, and ignorance alone. Can't get behind that. @DermViser , you have to admit that even if Republicans actions help your interests and goals, that they appeal to people who do not hold the same values as yourself. You seem like a rational person (most of the time). The Republican base is completely ignorant. I'm not talking about politicians, they put on a face and lie to the public. I'm talking about the idiots who eat that **** up.

 

[Dbate]

To the OP, I was in your position once. At one point in time, my gpa was exactly a 3.5 and I had scored a 30 on the mcat. Several posters and friends in real life told me that I could get into medical school being black. But I didn't want to get in that way. I studied hard and about three months later, I scored a 35 on the mcat.

I can only give my perspective as a single applicant, but when I embarked on the process of applying to medical schools, I made the firm decision that I wanted to be admitted on my own merit and hard work, so I did not include my ethnicity in any of my applications. (I was eventually directly asked what my ethnicity was at one interview, but that is a separate issue...)

This was a personal decision and one of the best decisions I have ever made. I can look on my acceptances and know that I earned them through hard work and that is the biggest gift you can give yourself.

You have to believe that you can work hard enough to get into medical school without someone lowering their standards.

Just look on this forum. There are several minorities who kill the MCAT and have excellent GPAs. It is a matter of believing in yourself.

Affirmative Action aside, it should be a matter of you wanting to work hard enough to excel.

 

[NontradCA]

To the OP, I was in your position once. At one point in time, my gpa was exactly a 3.5 and I had scored a 30 on the mcat. Several posters and friends in real life told me that I could get into medical school being black. But I didn't want to get in that way. I studied hard and about three months later, I scored a 35 on the mcat.

I can only give my perspective as a single applicant, but when I embarked on the process of applying to medical schools, I made the firm decision that I wanted to be admitted on my own merit and hard work, so I did not include my ethnicity in any of my applications. (I was eventually directly asked what my ethnicity was at one interview, but that is a separate issue...)

This was a personal decision and one of the best decisions I have ever made. I can look on my acceptances and know that I earned them through hard work and that is the biggest gift you can give yourself.

You have to believe that you can work hard enough to get into medical school without someone lowering their standards.

Just look on this forum. There are several minorities who kill the MCAT and have excellent GPAs. It is a matter of believing in yourself.

Affirmative Action aside, it should be a matter of you wanting to work hard enough to excel.

To me, the biggest gift I could give myself is a good, healthy body. I play every card that's available to me. This ranges from fully funded school with stipends, preferential admission, scholarships, disability. Mostly because I realize life's not fair and don't compare myself to others. YMMV.

 

[sat0ri]

My original post was supposed to read that there is "no reasonable good way" not "reasonably good way," as a clarification. I really need to proofread my posts before they go up.

The key word was meant to be reasonable, because there is no reasonable way for a medical school admissions committee to fix all of the problems that have been built over centuries and led to the disadvantages URMs face in their journey to applying to medical school. There are reasonable ways for things to be improved, but literally all of them are outside of the scope and role of a medical admissions committee. Until society decides to fix things, they're doing the best they can to recruit the best group of physicians that they can find to work within their community.

The mission of most medical schools is to provide the best care they can for their community and the country as a whole. AA and hispanic physicians are FAR more likely to work in areas with a disproportionately high minority population. Is a white guy or an Asian kid going to work in Oakland, the South side of Chicago, or the like? Probably not. If you recruit a kid with solid grades from the area in question, will he go back? Maybe, maybe not. He might use it as a ticket to get out- but following up, the AMA has found this to not be the case in general. Given that URMs are far more likely to provide care for those in need of it, it would arguably be unethical to not give them an advantage in admission, as you would not be fulfilling your school's mission and you would be essentially limiting access to care.

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/about/priorities/diversity.aspx

In summary, committees do their best to recruit a diverse group of physicians in the hope that a more diverse physician population will serve a more diverse patient population. They also bring added cultural knowledge to the table (trust me this is important, you'll see some weird things that you'll need a colleague familiar with the culture to explain) which can help with misunderstandings that arise in regard to treatment and care. Test scores do not ensure that a physician will be talented nor that they will serve those in need of care, thus committee members sometimes use extracurriculars, background, and other factors to recruit a batch of students that will best meet the mission of their school.

Thank you for the thoughtful response (and the link). It's not that I don't think it's a good thing, I've benefited directly from diversity at my school. It's a ethical question. Here's the famous situation from utilitarianism: four people in four rooms are dying of cancers and disease. One of liver, the other heart, the other bone, the other kidney. A perfectly healthy man walks in, and suddenly you think, "hey, if I kill that one man, I can save these four others lives!" So the question is not, "is it a good thing to say four people lives?"--which again I think it important--"but is this the right thing to do?". So, to go right to the main criticism of utilitarianism, is it right to take away from the individual (in this case, the student) to benefit the greater society? Should you enact your greater social amelioration by means of the individual students? My thoughts are "maybe." As someone who is white, I think I empathize with both: I see the reasons why, but I also see how much harder it is for Asians. I feel removed because I mostly see it as a black:asian thing, as I'm both helped and hurt by it (which is why I hate in these debates, that if you're on one side of this, it's like you're automatically a racists). But mostly, as a pre-med dying to get it, I'm think mostly I'm just happy that they get in, and I empathize with that the most (!). It seems there might be other ways as well that doesn't do this. For instance, targeting the students so they get better grades so they are more competitive applicants. This would cost a lot more money though, so I doubt it; but just because it doesn't mean we go we something that is potentially unethical.

This is tangential to my point but since it is in your response, I'll address it. It keeps getting tossed around the gpa=/=good doctor, but then why do we even use gpa at all? Why do so many spend sleepless nights getting A's if a 3.2 (or w/e was said, not important) was all they needed to technically be competent as a doctor? These are metrics to standardize. If my 3.6 is going to get compared to their 3.7, then it seems reasonable that his 3.5 is compared to my 3.6. It's not that they won't be competent, it's that, if you're going to develop a way to systemically compare people, it seems curious that you're using it to not systematically compare people. If the point of standardization is so that we can be compared equally, why are we not being compared equally? (Sure there are subjective components, but you should be able to compare the objective compents, well, objectively, right?) Other factors go into play, like mentioned, and they are very important factors, but is correlation with having such a good background and being of a certain race really that strong? Maybe, but it seems they might not be getting chosen on the character but instead the color of their skin. It's difficult to say though with group data only.

"it would arguably be unethical to not give them an advantage in admission, as you would not be fulfilling your school's mission and you would be essentially limiting access to care." I'm not sure this is a ethical argument. Sure it might lead to less social benefit in that diversity is better represented (which is a great thing), but I don't think it would limit access at all--a doctor is going to fill the spot either way, that will sort out with supply and demand.

The point about doctors returning to help those in need is well-taken (but pleonastic right? isn't that what all doctors do? only kidding...) I think the issue would be if two applicants applied to one of these schools, same stats and apparent commitment to underserved communities, to me it just feels a little racists to say, "Nah that guy's white, those whites never go back to help the communities..." I don't if that's actually a racists thought or not, but if I replace white with black, then I almost certainly feel racist saying that lol

 

[DermViser]

No, Republicans tend to say they are for the common folk.

That's only a recent trend in 2012 due to having their butts handed to them previously. Democrats showed them they can no longer ignore it.

 

[DermViser]

I think that's a new trend. Republicans used to stand for something (lower taxes, capitalism, less government), at least in the public eye. Now they appeal to ignorance, and ignorance alone. Can't get behind that. @DermViser , you have to admit that even if Republicans actions help your interests and goals, that they appeal to people who do not hold the same values as yourself. You seem like a rational person (most of the time). The Republican base is completely ignorant. I'm not talking about politicians, they put on a face and lie to the public. I'm talking about the idiots who eat that **** up.

The Republican base (those who are far right) gets more airtime. Compare that to the Democratic base (those who are far left) who are just as bad.

 

[Mad Jack]

Thank you for the thoughtful response (and the link). It's not that I don't think it's a good thing, I've benefited directly from diversity at my school. It's a ethical question. Here's the famous situation from utilitarianism: four people in four rooms are dying of cancers and disease. One of liver, the other heart, the other bone, the other kidney. A perfectly healthy man walks in, and suddenly you think, "hey, if I kill that one man, I can save these four others lives!" So the question is not, "is it a good thing to say four people lives?"--which again I think it important--"but is this the right thing to do?". So, to go right to the main criticism of utilitarianism, is it right to take away from the individual (in this case, the student) to benefit the greater society? Should you enact your greater social amelioration by means of the individual students? My thoughts are "maybe." As someone who is white, I think I empathize with both: I see the reasons why, but I also see how much harder it is for Asians. I feel removed because I mostly see it as a black:asian thing, as I'm both helped and hurt by it (which is why I hate in these debates, that if you're on one side of this, it's like you're automatically a racists). But mostly, as a pre-med dying to get it, I'm think mostly I'm just happy that they get in, and I empathize with that the most (!). It seems there might be other ways as well that doesn't do this. For instance, targeting the students so they get better grades so they are more competitive applicants. This would cost a lot more money though, so I doubt it; but just because it doesn't mean we go we something that is potentially unethical.

This is tangential to my point but since it is in your response, I'll address it. It keeps getting tossed around the gpa=/=good doctor, but then why do we even use gpa at all? Why do so many spend sleepless nights getting A's if a 3.2 (or w/e was said, not important) was all they needed to technically be competent as a doctor? These are metrics to standardize. If my 3.6 is going to get compared to their 3.7, then it seems reasonable that his 3.5 is compared to my 3.6. It's not that they won't be competent, it's that, if you're going to develop a way to systemically compare people, it seems curious that you're using it to not systematically compare people. If the point of standardization is so that we can be compared equally, why are we not being compared equally? (Sure there are subjective components, but you should be able to compare the objective compents, well, objectively, right?) Other factors go into play, like mentioned, and they are very important factors, but is correlation with having such a good background and being of a certain race really that strong? Maybe, but it seems they might not be getting chosen on the character but instead the color of their skin. It's difficult to say though with group data only.

"it would arguably be unethical to not give them an advantage in admission, as you would not be fulfilling your school's mission and you would be essentially limiting access to care." I'm not sure this is a ethical argument. Sure it might lead to less social benefit in that diversity is better represented (which is a great thing), but I don't think it would limit access at all--a doctor is going to fill the spot either way, that will sort out with supply and demand.

The point about doctors returning to help those in need is well-taken (but pleonastic right? isn't that what all doctors do? only kidding...) I think the issue would be if two applicants applied to one of these schools, same stats and apparent commitment to underserved communities, to me it just feels a little racists to say, "Nah that guy's white, those whites never go back to help the communities..." I don't if that's actually a racists thought or not, but if I replace white with black, then I almost certainly feel racist saying that lol

White people might very well choose to go back and serve underserved communities, but they typically pick different communities. They might go to Appalachia, the rural Midwest, or other areas that access to care but have primarily white populations, not because they're racist, but because these surroundings are more familiar and easier to adjust to. The same situation often applies to URM applicants. Another issue is that, while whites and Asians can easily integrate into upper-class communities, many URMs find themselves in a situation where they have the choice of moving into a white communjity and abandoning their culture in the process, or retaining their culture by living in a predominantly AA or Hispanic community, but conversely sacrificing some of the amenities of affluent communities. If you're white or Asian, there's not a lot of sacrifice- you get to keep your culture and move to a more affluent area, it's just a win across the board. To many URM applicants, either the transition proves too difficult, or they find their culture more important than upscale houses and good public schools, so they return to their roots. The underserved aren't one broad category of people, they're several communities, and you need to have the right mix of physicians to help as many of those communities as possible.