Are there any adcoms on here who disagree with race-based affirmative action?

[ridethecliche]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'd be interested to know how URMs fare in medical school, residencies, and their careers compared to their peers. Are we really doing anyone justice by admitting (sometimes) marginal applicants based on an accident of birth?

I know a URM girl who barely scraped 30 on the MCAT and had a ~3.6 GPA. She's interviewing at top programs now and already holds several acceptances. She pulled some stunningly bad behavior at some of her interviews and still got in to those schools (I witnessed one myself).

Explain to me, how is getting into a top 10 school with these numbers justice? Anyone else would be rejected right away.

I think this attitude leads a lot of people astray because it's self serving to a certain degree. It completely misses the point re: disparities, underserved areas, etc etc.

One of the most important things I learned early in my research career was when I was discussing an 'awesome' project with a PI. After I talked for a good ten minutes about all these awesome things I wanted to do he looked me dead in the eyes and asked, "alright then, what's your goal?". I didn't have a simple answer. He told me to come back when I had one.

My point is that the applicant's goal (getting into a school) and a school's goal (creating a class that will serve the population) are not the same thing at all. The answer above is to the wrong question, especially because it has no bearing on how the school decides. You can cry foul and say it's unfair, but then you'd be misstating the purpose of admissions.

Schools also have different missions, choosing one that most fits what you're going for might be a good work around for what some people want.

Simply put, you're answering the wrong question and the question you're asking doesn't factor into the equation at all.

I am not boring!!!!! >< 😀

Yeah, but you're a dentist.

😛

 

[fancymylotus]

I think this attitude leads a lot of people astray because it's self serving to a certain degree. It completely misses the point re: disparities, underserved areas, etc etc.

One of the most important things I learned early in my research career was when I was discussing an 'awesome' project with a PI. After I talked for a good ten minutes about all these awesome things I wanted to do he looked me dead in the eyes and asked, "alright then, what's your goal?". I didn't have a simple answer. He told me to come back when I had one.

My point is that the applicant's goal (getting into a school) and a school's goal (creating a class that will serve the population) are not the same thing at all. The answer above is to the wrong question, especially because it has no bearing on how the school decides. You can cry foul and say it's unfair, but then you'd be misstating the purpose of admissions.

Schools also have different missions, choosing one that most fits what you're going for might be a good work around for what some people want.

Simply put, you're answering the wrong question and the question you're asking doesn't factor into the equation at all.



Yeah, but you're a dentist.

😛

Mean 🙁

 

[Omppu27]

I disagree with it to some degree, and I'm frequently the one who scores URM applicants the lowest on my committee (everyone's scores of applicants are displayed during the meeting). Don't get me wrong, I do think it's important to take into account a person's background and look at their application in that context. I'm not going to vote someone down just because they don't have the breadth or depth of experiences we typically see in our applicants if, for example, they had to spend a lot of time working to support their family or had major things going on in their life. But at the end of the day, I don't give people bonus points because of their race, and if I don't think an applicant is otherwise "good enough" to warrant an acceptance, then I don't care what their background, ethnicity, SES, etc. is. I guess I favor meritocracy over "building diversity" or whatever buzzwords you want to use to describe AA-like programs. And I use meritocracy in the sense not of achieving some kind of universal standard, but of making the most of whatever your situation was. That can be a difficult thing to assess in an application, but you can get a sense of it. It's a moving target, and yes, people are held to different standards. I look at the applicant who comes from a high economic class - as evidenced by the fact that both of their parents are professionals and they live in a nice area - with a more demanding eye than I do an applicant who comes from a single-parent household in a poor area. But in either case, both applicants must demonstrate some kind of excellence, aptitude, and ambition in order for them to impress me. What exactly that might mean varies depending upon the circumstances they come from.

This basically sums up how I feel. 👍

 

[kthxbai]

I think this attitude leads a lot of people astray because it's self serving to a certain degree. It completely misses the point re: disparities, underserved areas, etc etc.

One of the most important things I learned early in my research career was when I was discussing an 'awesome' project with a PI. After I talked for a good ten minutes about all these awesome things I wanted to do he looked me dead in the eyes and asked, "alright then, what's your goal?". I didn't have a simple answer. He told me to come back when I had one.

My point is that the applicant's goal (getting into a school) and a school's goal (creating a class that will serve the population) are not the same thing at all. The answer above is to the wrong question, especially because it has no bearing on how the school decides. You can cry foul and say it's unfair, but then you'd be misstating the purpose of admissions.

Schools also have different missions, choosing one that most fits what you're going for might be a good work around for what some people want.

Simply put, you're answering the wrong question and the question you're asking doesn't factor into the equation at all.



Yeah, but you're a dentist.

😛

Hmm.. You probably put it best. I like that explanation.

 

[amad01]

You don't get it, and the sad thing is, I don't think I can help you--especially since you don't seem to want to get it. Yes, MSs are going crazy everywhere and are accepting brain-dead-equivalent-applicants from other races according to you and whoever else.🙄 Holy crap.

For the umpteenth time here at SDN, MSs look holistically--at the whole application--and may favor more research or community-based medicine. Giving a few points of a break off to make up for crappy school systems and predominately single-parent homes (w/ less support for kids as students) in crappy areas or to entice more people to go into community-based healthcare, how is this killing anyone? It's not like you can just throw your application into the ring simply b/c you are considered UR. I mean there has got to be something more to you regardless of race, GPA, and MCAT score. The latter two only help people get interviews. And let's get the research on how many ORM are going into poorer or more remote areas. I have actually worked (work) with physicians that were Black, Hispanic or otherwise URM and are/were indeed working in areas most ORM people wouldn't dare go. When I needed to get ahold of them, I didn't have to beg and wait a zillion years either. Know why? They know their value in those areas.

Serious? Not only are you jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, there is hard evidence of the differences in GPA/MCAT for accepted ORM vs URM applicants. You can find graphs all over these threads... such treatment is positive discrimination aka racism.. are you denying that there is a difference? That's the only point I have made or argued. It doesn't mean schools don't still look at applicants "holistically," which is just a made up word for "we have 1000000 applications and need some way to weed people out."

 

[mimelim]

Serious? Not only are you jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, there is hard evidence of the differences in GPA/MCAT for accepted ORM vs URM applicants. You can find graphs all over these threads... such treatment is positive discrimination aka racism.. are you denying that there is a difference? That's the only point I have made or argued. It doesn't mean schools don't still look at applicants "holistically," which is just a made up word for "we have 1000000 applications and need some way to weed people out."

Positive discrimination is a synonym for affirmative action. You may consider it equal to racism, but certainly the vast majority of people do not.

"Affirmative action or positive discrimination[1] (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.

The nature of positive discrimination policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a certain group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes."

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently."

Sorry, if you read those as the same, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[jl lin]

Serious? Not only are you jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, there is hard evidence of the differences in GPA/MCAT for accepted ORM vs URM applicants. You can find graphs all over these threads... such treatment is positive discrimination aka racism.. are you denying that there is a difference? That's the only point I have made or argued. It doesn't mean schools don't still look at applicants "holistically," which is just a made up word for "we have 1000000 applications and need some way to weed people out."

Step back. I mean really do the internal work and step back. It's disturbing to me that you cannot or will not see the clear distinction between what mimelin is saying, and what you have determined is an absolute--which you are erroneously referring to as racism. White folks are not discriminated against b/c they are not black or NA or something else when applying to MS. This is an amazing jump and oversimplification of what the process entails and is about. Do people on either side politicize it? Sure. That's people for you. Complicated. But really isn't the point of giving certain groups of a people a reasonably calculated (for lack of a better word--using the golf analogy) "handicap" beneficial to various communities and thus society at large? I hate using that word (handicap), b/c it so falls short of what the process is about.

If you are a ORM, you actually can get into MS. It may take you a while. You may have to jump through a lot of hoops--so must just about everyone else. But there is nothing wrong with looking to serve particular communities that need strong commitment and help--and in reality, that often, not always, but often enough means bringing more folks in that can relate closely and in fact commit to these communities. Please tell me how this is some horrible thing that is stopping loads of white, male, pre-meds from getting into MS, if they are so determined to do so. Please tell me how this is a form of racism; b/c I don't really think you understand what racism is. Please tell me how you or your white cohorts are being blocked substantially from the process. And please tell me why you would so focus on this as a point of serious contention--especially since you have noted that you are a med student. Again, regardless of whatever an applicant's background is, 99.9% of those applying to medical school have to jump through a ton of hoops. Since there are more applicants than seats, it a huge pain and risk for everyone pretty much!

If an URM gets in with an MCAT of 26 and a GPA of 3.3, but has other qualities, holistically speaking (and holistic is a real word with powerful meaning when it is used in a genuine fashion), and that particular person shows a dedication to support and give good care to people of his/her community, what in the world does that matter to you?

Now, pre-med wise, if a OR person goes into such communities and substantially volunteers and/or works with patients within them, they too may be given an advantage with similar statistics. Might it be a top ten school? Probably not. So, Ben Carson was erroneously given a change at high ranking schools and shouldn't have been? Really?

Is there a sense of "quota?" Sure. Things have to be quantified in order to be measured, socially speaking. This happens in all of life through many different groups and mechanisms. But the process of obtaining entrance into MS has to be one where there is the mixing of both the quantitative and qualitative. This is shown best by what people do. So if a UR candidate has numbers like I have shown above, but in other ways, has demonstrated that she or he is powerfully committed--by work, volunteering, and other such things, why shouldn't that person get an opportunity? The biggest word that matters in my book about medicine is commitment to people. That's where the rubber meets the road.

I am sorry. As I said, I don't think I could write or say anything more that would help you to see other relevant perspectives; b/c you are stuck in your own bias about this. So . . .moving on now.

 

[WingedOx]

Serious? Not only are you jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth, there is hard evidence of the differences in GPA/MCAT for accepted ORM vs URM applicants. You can find graphs all over these threads... such treatment is positive discrimination aka racism.. are you denying that there is a difference? That's the only point I have made or argued. It doesn't mean schools don't still look at applicants "holistically," which is just a made up word for "we have 1000000 applications and need some way to weed people out."

Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance.

 

[f4reignbeauty]

There comes a time when you realize that it is not beneficial to have these URM/ORM discussions. Many believe what they believe, and no SDN forum will change that conclusion. I will say, however that if you (as an aspiring physician) cannot understand the struggles that minorities face, how might this affect your ability to treat those who come from these populations?

 

[jl lin]

If an ADCOM is rejecting the 35/4.0 in favor of the lower stat applicant, it's not because of the "lower" applicant. It's because the 35/4.0 had serious red flags.

Or, just maybe, the applicant didn't fit well in terms of the whole application--the holistics. Some people do interview poorly, but even if you are shy, if you are motivated and committed and can demonstrate it by your work, it will come out.

People have to stop focusing just on the numbers. Yes. The numbers will help get you in the door for an interview faster--but once the put the whole application together with seeing and talking with the applicant as an interviewee, the game changes--and the changes, at least in part, may have to do with the school's mission/focus. Listen, this isn't different from doing a professional job interview. This is where the holistic (I'll call it the "H-factor" meets the "I-factor"--Interview Factor). Numbers get you in the door to be able to be vetted more closely and personally together with your whole application.

So a grace-factor is given with re: to those numbers for UR persons. But after that, they still have to sell it hard and be real after that. And their whole application better run consistently with their interview presentation.

Overall, I am saying the "grace-factor" numbers are not ridiculously low. If that were the case, everywhere, across-the-board, there would be making the case from Amad's and Aloft's POV. But they are only giving a small "handicap" if you will, in order to allow them to get in the door for an interview. Big freaking deal. Seriously substandard performance is not generally going to cut it for acceptance, regardless of URM or ORM. And what would be the deal with re: to shelf exams, all the steps, board certification, etc? This is not a one and done process BY FAR!

 

[jl lin]

There comes a time when you realize that it is not beneficial to have these URM/ORM discussions. Many believe what they believe, and no SDN forum will change that conclusion. I will say, however that if you (as an aspiring physician) cannot understand the struggles that minorities face, how might this affect your ability to treat those who come from these populations?

Excellent point. . .but also, I think some people just don't want to accept the many challenges of getting into MS and then the whole process and road in becoming a physician. Since the numbers (seats to applicants) make it tough, there is needless resentment reflected in this issue.

I had a friend who's son made this claim as the reason why he couldn't beat the odds and get accepted into MS here in the states. But also, the dude wasn't willing to go DO, so that was also a factor. He's a bright person. He did cool things like the Peace Corp, etc. His whole whine was that b/c he was 22 or so and white, he was not going to get into a US med school. So, he applied and was accepted to St Georges University for MS. Back in the day when he did this, there were a good number of residencies and so forth open on the East Coast. He did well across the board. His folks spent a huge yacht-load of money on him, but he became a BCFP doc. He couldn't as easily get away with that today--so he would have to give serious consideration to DO. But he had his prejudices against DO, which hopefully he has gotten over since he has been in practice for around 15 years or more. There were other options open to him, but he was impatient and thought, "If I could only get that MD." I am not saying he didn't earn what he has now. Not at all. But it pissed me off that he and his family's focus was on the belief that he couldn't land a US medical degree w/o going offshore, b/c of the URM factor. I called BS on it back then, and I call BS on it now. He had other avenues. Why should he or anyone else feel entitled to get into MS over others who have had less opportunities than he had? For getting into MS, it's a BS argument. Let's just agree that it is pretty much a pain in the butt process for everyone and deal with it already.

 

[amad01]

Positive discrimination is a synonym for affirmative action. You may consider it equal to racism, but certainly the vast majority of people do not.

"Affirmative action or positive discrimination[1] (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.

The nature of positive discrimination policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a certain group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes."

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently."

Sorry, if you read those as the same, I'm not sure what to tell you.

The definition you posted sums it up perfectly... treating different races differently based on presumed shared inheritable traits. That is exactly what AA does. How can that not be any more clear.... have you taken an ethics class based on minorities, racism, ethnicity in America? Not all racism is immediately negative. It is racist to buy the black woman food at the store because you presume she can't afford it herself. It is racist to accept blue students to a program because they are blue. A math teacher giving extra help or being more lenient when grading the exam of a latino bc the teacher presumes all latinos are bad at math is being racist, yet the teacher is helping the latino. AA is a form of racism. I never said they were the same, that's like saying blue and color are the same... blue is a type of color.

 

[jl lin]

The definition you posted sums it up perfectly... treating different races differently based on presumed shared inheritable traits. That is exactly what AA does. How can that not be any more clear.... have you taken an ethics class based on minorities, racism, ethnicity in America? Not all racism is immediately negative. It is racist to buy the black woman food at the store because you presume she can't afford it herself. It is racist to accept blue students to a program because they are blue. A math teacher giving extra help or being more lenient when grading the exam of a latino bc the teacher presumes all latinos are bad at math is being racist, yet the teacher is helping the latino. AA is a form of racism. I never said they were the same, that's like saying blue and color are the same... blue is a type of color.

I am challenged to find a more poorly reasoned argument. Wow.
LOL. You do not comprehend what racism was and is. You don't understand how to have balanced thinking here. You are stuck dude.


Also, I am willing to be that you believe life and people are always fair. This will be a problem for you in the future in dealing with all sorts of human suffering, loss, and tragedy. Good luck with that.

 

[amad01]

Step back. I mean really do the internal work and step back. It's disturbing to me that you cannot or will not see the clear distinction between what mimelin is saying, and what you have determined is an absolute--which you are erroneously referring to as racism. White folks are not discriminated against b/c they are not black or NA or something else when applying to MS. This is an amazing jump and oversimplification of what the process entails and is about. Do people on either side politicize it? Sure. That's people for you. Complicated. But really isn't the point of giving certain groups of a people a reasonably calculated (for lack of a better word--using the golf analogy) "handicap" beneficial to various communities and thus society at large? I hate using that word (handicap), b/c it so falls short of what the process is about.

If you are a ORM, you actually can get into MS. It may take you a while. You may have to jump through a lot of hoops--so must just about everyone else. But there is nothing wrong with looking to serve particular communities that need strong commitment and help--and in reality, that often, not always, but often enough means bringing more folks in that can relate closely and in fact commit to these communities. Please tell me how this is some horrible thing that is stopping loads of white, male, pre-meds from getting into MS, if they are so determined to do so. Please tell me how this is a form of racism; b/c I don't really think you understand what racism is. Please tell me how you or your white cohorts are being blocked substantially from the process. And please tell me why you would so focus on this as a point of serious contention--especially since you have noted that you are a med student. Again, regardless of whatever an applicant's background is, 99.9% of those applying to medical school have to jump through a ton of hoops. Since there are more applicants than seats, it a huge pain and risk for everyone pretty much!

If an URM gets in with an MCAT of 26 and a GPA of 3.3, but has other qualities, holistically speaking (and holistic is a real word with powerful meaning when it is used in a genuine fashion), and that particular person shows a dedication to support and give good care to people of his/her community, what in the world does that matter to you?

Now, pre-med wise, if a OR person goes into such communities and substantially volunteers and/or works with patients within them, they too may be given an advantage with similar statistics. Might it be a top ten school? Probably not. So, Ben Carson was erroneously given a change at high ranking schools and shouldn't have been? Really?

Is there a sense of "quota?" Sure. Things have to be quantified in order to be measured, socially speaking. This happens in all of life through many different groups and mechanisms. But the process of obtaining entrance into MS has to be one where there is the mixing of both the quantitative and qualitative. This is shown best by what people do. So if a UR candidate has numbers like I have shown above, but in other ways, has demonstrated that she or he is powerfully committed--by work, volunteering, and other such things, why shouldn't that person get an opportunity? The biggest word that matters in my book about medicine is commitment to people. That's where the rubber meets the road.

I am sorry. As I said, I don't think I could write or say anything more that would help you to see other relevant perspectives; b/c you are stuck in your own bias about this. So . . .moving on now.

haha you are just jumping to conclusions... I never said it changes my chances or anybody's chances. I am perfectly fine with the racism of AA. All I have said is that it is racist. It is positive discrimination and although it appears to be beneficial, I believe it has a negative effect as it reinforces differences and segregation.

And referring to the blue, you are inferring that ALL URM that are accepted with lower stats are better holistically than ALL ORM with higher stats who's places they took, which is quite an overgeneralization.

 

[amad01]

I am challenged to find a more poorly reasoned argument. Wow.
LOL. You do not comprehend what racism was and is. You don't understand how to have balanced thinking here. You are stuck dude.


Also, I am willing to be that you believe life and people are always fair. This will be a problem for you in the future in dealing with all sorts of human suffering, loss, and tragedy. Good luck with that.

mimelin posted the definition of racsim a few posts above... I'm assuming you believe all racism is negative hate crimes? Treating someone different because they are different is racist. That's as simple of terms I can put it in for you bud.

 

[amad01]

Statistical significance does not equal clinical significance.

you mean like more volunteer hours stocking syringes in the ER? 🙄

 

[mimelim]

mimelin posted the definition of racsim a few posts above... I'm assuming you believe all racism is negative hate crimes? Treating someone different because they are different is racist. That's as simple of terms I can put it in for you bud.

The definition that I posted does not say, "Treating someone different because they are different is racist." This is the most basic of reading comprehension. I challenge you to find a source to find one that does state that because the following disagree with your definition:

Merriam Webster
Wikipedia
Thefreedictionary.com
Reference.com
Oxford Dictionary

And those were the ones that I bothered to check.

 

[jl lin]

mimelin posted the definition of racsim a few posts above... I'm assuming you believe all racism is negative hate crimes? Treating someone different because they are different is racist. That's as simple of terms I can put it in for you bud.

LOL No. Ugh! First people treat other people differently for thousands of reasons every single day. I am perhaps falsely assuming you have been strongly out in the workforce.

OK, so how do you feel about golf and giving people handicaps?

[The United States Golf Association’s handicap system rates golfers according to their potential ability. The system “enables golfers of all skill levels to compete on an equitable basis,” the USGA says. Golf handicaps allow golfers of different abilities to compete against each other on a level playing field.]

Two quick points and then God help me I must leave.

1. Racial disparities exist, period. You can't try to neutralize this by saying those who have not suffered such disparities are being given disparate treatment b/c they have a different race. MS applicants are people. People aren't robots. There is no perfect way to level out the playing field here. There is no magic wand that can be waved so that everyone had, has, or will have the same treatment when there has been and continues to be disparate treatment of others based on race.

"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior" has and CONTINUES to occur against minority groups, especially racial, minority groups. You can go all Billy Joel about it, and say I "didn't start the fire..." but the fire has been here and it is here--in the sense that the damage has been done and continues to be done. Things like AA are about trying to MITIGATE such damages and losses.

2. The communities in which racial disparities and so forth exist continue to need committed healthcare providers. Those committed to doing so SHOULD be given preference over those that aren't. People normally build trust among their own groups. It doesn't mean they can't with other groups, but it's like that old adage, "Once bitten, twice shy." Medicine is, at least ideally, supposed to be a humanitarian profession for God's sake. Adding to that support in needed areas is NOT racially disparate treatment toward whites applying to medical school--unless they can show a true, long-term, and bonafide connection to such groups and communities.

We aren't a one race group. We are in the sense of being humans, but the depth and sphere of differences culturally and otherwise are real and exit! If you have a magic wand to wave that can make us all one race, PLEASE wave it NOW!!! We'd love to have it. At least I would. I like diversity, but now when it causes disunity. The question then becomes, how in the world do you maintain positive, respectful diversity and true human unity at the same time?

No one has any easy fixes for this. The best we can do is mitigate unfairness, disparities, and help as many as we can. So if using URM or AA mitigates losses and helps people that need less discrimination, so why is that a "bad" thing?

Disparate treatment of minorities may or may not be an actual "hate" crime per se--according to a hard and fast definition of the word hate--it depends; but it's still treating people differently in a destructive, restrictive way--it is in the sense of treating others as less and allowing them less opportunities--less respect--less potential to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in the same way as the majority of human beings in our country do--and in reality, that is both wasteful and hateful.

By creating this farce of an argument regarding "race-neutrality"—as if that is something that can easily or readily be achieved in even another hundred years—you actually help to foster an adverse knee-jerk response from those that are and have been negatively discriminated against. Seriously, I don't even know if you get this, but you're actually perpetuating racism b/c of your gross lack of insight and understanding. Attitudes like yours kill any work toward true unity.

Yours is a false argument and it only perpetuates continued disunity.

 

[jl lin]

haha you are just jumping to conclusions... I never said it changes my chances or anybody's chances. I am perfectly fine with the racism of AA. All I have said is that it is racist. It is positive discrimination and although it appears to be beneficial, I believe it has a negative effect as it reinforces differences and segregation.

And referring to the blue, you are inferring that ALL URM that are accepted with lower stats are better holistically than ALL ORM with higher stats who's places they took, which is quite an overgeneralization.

OK, this is so illogical. How could anyone EVER say such a thing w/o first interviewing them and looking at their whole application. Seriously. I am beginning to think you are inhaling too much dub in your vapor cig. I am not trying to be offensive. I just don't understand what is going on with your reasoning skills.

 

[gapyearguppy]

The definition you posted sums it up perfectly... treating different races differently based on presumed shared inheritable traits. That is exactly what AA does. How can that not be any more clear.... have you taken an ethics class based on minorities, racism, ethnicity in America? Not all racism is immediately negative. It is racist to buy the black woman food at the store because you presume she can't afford it herself. It is racist to accept blue students to a program because they are blue. A math teacher giving extra help or being more lenient when grading the exam of a latino bc the teacher presumes all latinos are bad at math is being racist, yet the teacher is helping the latino. AA is a form of racism. I never said they were the same, that's like saying blue and color are the same... blue is a type of color.

I'm laughing so hard because as a person who studies race theory I can confidently say that you actually have nooo idea what racism even means or even have the slightest clue to all that it encompasses. You're literally just throwing around the word. It means nothing in your mouth. From the definition given, racism and positive discrimination are actually antonyms.But I don't think you actually care 🙂

 

[gapyearguppy]

I've been reading a lot of articles on the statistics of acceptances into med school based on race produced by AAMC, and one interesting tidbit I read is that most people inaccurately believe you're competing with everyone to get a spot into med school, when actually you're competing with others of your same race. So Asians are competing with other Asians, Latinos with other Latinos etc etc

Also, I think we should be critical of the stats presented by AAMC. As said earlier, every medical school is lumped together, including HBCUs, which skews the data. I'm sure that the acceptance rate for a URM with stats of a 3.4 GPA and an MCAT of 30 is not the same at Harvard or UCSF as the acceptance rate for a URM with similar stats at Howard or a smaller state school. Depending on your stats as an ORM, you might not even be applying to the same schools that a URM with lower stats would be considering, so there shouldn't be this fear of the evil underqualified URM taking your spot, either.

 

[amad01]

Does it really come to that much of a shock to you all that there are positive forms of racism? That it's not just drive by's, slavery, and denying jobs to colored people?

Gapyearguppy you "study" this and don't know that not all racism is blatant?

 

[WingedOx]

you mean like more volunteer hours stocking syringes in the ER? 🙄

Jesus Christ dude, is your perspective of the medical profession that shallow?

The app beyond the numbers is your demonstration of emotional maturity, though eloquence in writing, eloquence in your interview, etc. Believe me that matters more than a 34 vs a 31. We want to select people who we'd want to work side by side with, the people that are going to connect with our patients, the people that are going to treat our staff well, and the people who are able to think critically about the world within and outside of the medical and scientific professions.

Sure, the stat barrier to getting a serious look is likely lower for URMs, but that's getting a look, not getting an acceptance.

And btw, taking your MD apps link down was a smart move, because holy crap, not only do you come across as sheltered, but also decidedly concrete.

 

[gapyearguppy]

Does it really come to that much of a shock to you all that there are positive forms of racism? That it's not just drive by's, slavery, and denying jobs to colored people?

Gapyearguppy you "study" this and don't know that not all racism is blatant?

Of course racism can be subtle. Most times it is.
But affirmative action isn't subtle racism. Racism is a form of oppression. And no one is being oppressed when medical schools allow maybe 10 URM to "diversify" their class of 100.

 

[amad01]

Jesus Christ dude, is your perspective of the medical profession that shallow?

The app beyond the numbers is your demonstration of emotional maturity, though eloquence in writing, eloquence in your interview, etc. Believe me that matters more than a 34 vs a 31. We want to select people who we'd want to work side by side with, the people that are going to connect with our patients, the people that are going to treat our staff well, and the people who are able to think critically about the world within and outside of the medical and scientific professions.

Sure, the stat barrier to getting a serious look is likely lower for URMs, but that's getting a look, not getting an acceptance.

And btw, taking your MD apps link down was a smart move, because holy crap, not only do you come across as sheltered, but also decidedly concrete.

It was a joke buddy, relax. Welcome to the lions den... I understand that it is much more complex than a black person gets in with low stats and a white person has to have higher stats. There's much more to the process. Believe me, I've been accepted to schools where friends with much higher stats than me also applied. I believe my background and experiences have given me a "boost" so to say that I'm sure many URM's have coming from various backgrounds and/or experiencing different hardships.

I say AA is positive discrimination and a form of racism and everyone loses their minds. That is literally the only thing I've said. Why does that make so many people so upset? It's almost like everyone admits it such as bolded above, and then gets upset and starts personally attacking everyone haha. YES there are a million factors going into decisions. But there are also a vast amount of data showing the "boost" URM's get with a lower GPA/MCAT acceptance rate. I can agree that it's NOT JUST GPA/MCAT but that there are many other things that get someone accepted. However, you can't just sweep the data under the rug. I'm done with the lions den. 👍

You interested in my MDapps it will be back up soon, haven't been using it or updated it in months, although I don't know why you are concerned... You think I took it down because of a racism discussion ? You need a hobby my friend. PM me if you want to know about my application season in the mean time.

 

[rodmichael82]

You guys really need to STFU about the affirmative action and URM BS.

 

[amad01]

Of course racism can be subtle. Most times it is.
But affirmative action isn't subtle racism. Racism is a form of oppression. And no one is being oppressed when medical schools allow maybe 10 URM to "diversify" their class of 100.

Not all racism is oppression.. there's blatant (obvious, in your face racism, name calling, denial of basic rights, this would be your oppression form), covert (trying to hide it or cover it up, pretend it's not there), unintentional (didn't mean it, "the first black president!" is an unintentional racist remark), self righteous (do it with the purpose of helping someone solely because they are of a different race).👍

Here's an article where you can learn more https://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/somethingaboutthesubject.pdf

 

[WingedOx]

Not all racism is oppression.. there's blatant (obvious, in your face racism, name calling, denial of basic rights, this would be your oppression form), covert (trying to hide it or cover it up, pretend it's not there), unintentional (didn't mean it, "the first black president!" is an unintentional racist remark), self righteous (do it with the purpose of helping someone solely because they are of a different race).👍

Here's an article where you can learn more https://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/somethingaboutthesubject.pdf

Can someone tell me the word for the racial version of "mansplaining". because this is it.

 

[amad01]

Can someone tell me the word for the racial version of "mansplaining". because this is it.

Or you could read the article and learn something .

 

[jl lin]

You guys really need to STFU about the affirmative action and URM BS.

It wouldn't matter. The person just doesn't care to actually learn and understand. He continues to perpetuate his "positive racism" nonsense. He is stuck in that loop and won't allow himself to get out.

I can't help but see some young 20 something that knows squat about real life.

There is something much worse than people who can't learn; it's people that just dig their heels in and refuse to learn.

 

[jl lin]

It was a joke buddy, relax. Welcome to the lions den... I understand that it is much more complex than a black person gets in with low stats and a white person has to have higher stats. There's much more to the process. Believe me, I've been accepted to schools where friends with much higher stats than me also applied. I believe my background and experiences have given me a "boost" so to say that I'm sure many URM's have coming from various backgrounds and/or experiencing different hardships.

I say AA is positive discrimination and a form of racism and everyone loses their minds. That is literally the only thing I've said. Why does that make so many people so upset? It's almost like everyone admits it such as bolded above, and then gets upset and starts personally attacking everyone haha. YES there are a million factors going into decisions. But there are also a vast amount of data showing the "boost" URM's get with a lower GPA/MCAT acceptance rate. I can agree that it's NOT JUST GPA/MCAT but that there are many other things that get someone accepted. However, you can't just sweep the data under the rug. I'm done with the lions den. 👍

You interested in my MDapps it will be back up soon, haven't been using it or updated it in months, although I don't know why you are concerned... You think I took it down because of a racism discussion ? You need a hobby my friend. PM me if you want to know about my application season in the mean time.

You have such fakocta reasoning skills, and you are actually in medical school? Again, I am not really trying to go
ad hominem here, but you keep circling back to the same faulty reasoning.

 

[amad01]

You have such fakocta reasoning skills, and you are actually in medical school? Again, I am not really trying to go
ad hominem here, but you keep circling back to the same faulty reasoning.

haha good luck buddy 👍 just because someone thinks something different than you, you should learn to control yourself 🙂 try defending your point without attacking others, which is all you are doing here. And to your post above, I wish I was only 20! I have lived half my life in another continent, speak three languages but I guess I only know "squat" because I learned a different definition of racism in ethnic minority graduate level classes than you did... perhaps everything they taught was a lie 🙄 but I'm not going to get butthurt and start personally attacking people over it. Kudos to you for being passionate about URM's. I have no problem with the system, I just think it falls under the definition of racism. There are endless theories and points of view when it comes to ethics and moral values, so it is ok if you disagree.

 

[Winged Scapula]

Users are reminded that the use of foul language/acronyms and insults are a TOS violation. Please remain civil or this thread will be closed.

In addition, if you're going to insult each other, please spell the terms correctly (eg, panty waist [not waste]).

 

[NickNaylor]

Users are reminded that the use of foul language/acronyms and insults are a TOS violation. Please remain civil or this thread will be closed.

In addition, if you're going to insult each other, please spell the terms correctly (eg, panty waist [not waste]).

I love the simultaneous demand of excellence in spelling.

 

[GaiusOctavius]

Favoring a discriminated group. Society is funny. It does, however, make sense to me to account for disadvantages an applicant may have faced.

Positive discrimination is a synonym for affirmative action. You may consider it equal to racism, but certainly the vast majority of people do not.

"Affirmative action or positive discrimination[1] (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.

The nature of positive discrimination policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a certain group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes."

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently."

Sorry, if you read those as the same, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[reapplicanthelpme2014]

Users are reminded that the use of foul language/acronyms and insults are a TOS violation. Please remain civil or this thread will be closed.

In addition, if you're going to insult each other, please spell the terms correctly (eg, panty waist [not waste]).

You should probably just lock the thread. I'm not sure this conversation is going to get anymore civil.

 

[mimelim]

Users are reminded that the use of foul language/acronyms and insults are a TOS violation. Please remain civil or this thread will be closed.

In addition, if you're going to insult each other, please spell the terms correctly (eg, panty waist [not waste]).

pssst. it is pantywaist, not panty waist


(I had not idea, my co-resident pointed it out XD)

 

[jl lin]

I apologize . I thought Yiddish was the nicer way to go. I guess there is a misspell on the Yiddish word. I'm sorry, but I get such a kick out of Yiddish words. They're the best. I don't remember seeing pantywaist. Missed that one.

I was getting dizzy from the circling. As I said. The person seems totally lost is some confused reasoning loop that goes beyond mere differences in opinion.

Thanks though. 🙂 Too much time spent here already.

 

[jl lin]

haha good luck buddy 👍 just because someone thinks something different than you, you should learn to control yourself 🙂 try defending your point without attacking others, which is all you are doing here. And to your post above, I wish I was only 20! I have lived half my life in another continent, speak three languages but I guess I only know "squat" because I learned a different definition of racism in ethnic minority graduate level classes than you did... perhaps everything they taught was a lie 🙄 but I'm not going to get butthurt and start personally attacking people over it. Kudos to you for being passionate about URM's. I have no problem with the system, I just think it falls under the definition of racism. There are endless theories and points of view when it comes to ethics and moral values, so it is ok if you disagree.

Oh my, my, my. I oops and read your last reply to me. So, for clarification sake, here goes:

If you are simply referring to some contrived philosophical semantics, really then, what was/is you point w/ re: to the main post/s? If people want to ascribe oxymoronic notions in some learning curriculum, well whatever.

At the end of the day, it seemed like you were equating the notion of "positive racism" with reverse racism, b/c that would be the consequence of the former to the latter. Wrestling over relatively newly ascribed semantics doesn't change the anything here. "Alpha" or "A," "1" or "I," what difference does it make, unless you are trying to take a stance on how you feel it is objectionable to use attempts to balance such issues out and mitigate losses? If so, that is the counterpoint/s many of us have tried to make.

Whatever semantics you want to play with, using a process in attempt to balance the scales is not inherently evil or wrong, as you would seem to imply. As others as well as I have attempted to point out, ignoring the REALITIES AND DIFFERENCES would be wasteful, even to some degree hateful, b/c it limits/detracts from what, at least this nation, is supposed to be about. And neither does it address the need for medical professionals committed to certain populations.

So putting aside your curriculum-based nomenclature, are you saying that addressing URM issues or AA is fundamentally unfair? If you are, once more, I contend that attitude only increases disparities and disunity. Life is so imperfect. There aren't simple answers. It's kind of like the parenting books of old, where you treated each child the same, which on the face of it, seems to make sense. Sure, certain principle-based concepts are taught equally to them, but how you teach and apply for each child could be quite different--b/c each of them is quite different. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. Same thing with patients. There is EBP, but at the end of the day, each patient is a unique individual, and what may work for one patient or set of patients may not work for another or others in terms of the realities of application.

So, yes, it's an oversimplification to say, "Hey. No positive or negative racism." The world doesn't work that way, and if you have lived abroad, you most definitely have had the opportunity to see this on a larger scale.

So, I am confused about the very point of your posts. Is it just to point out various kinds of social nomenclature--or are you saying that attempting to mitigate losses amongst groups doesn't work--and that attempting to gain and provide medical leaders to particular groups and communities doesn't work? If so, perhaps if you presented your case and could substantiate it with facts, those is positions to change it would be influenced to do so. But I am not at all certain you would be able to demonstrate this across the board--especially in medicine.

 

[amad01]

At the end of the day, it seemed like you were equating the notion of "positive racism" with reverse racism, b/c that would be the consequence of the former to the latter. Wrestling over relatively newly ascribed semantics doesn't change the anything here. "Alpha" or "A," "1" or "I," what difference does it make, unless you are trying to take a stance on how you feel it is objectionable to use attempts to balance such issues out and mitigate losses? If so, that is the counterpoint/s many of us have tried to make.



So putting aside your curriculum-based nomenclature, are you saying that addressing URM issues or AA is fundamentally unfair? If you are, once more, I contend that attitude only increases disparities and disunity. Life is so imperfect. There aren't simple answers. It's kind of like the parenting books of old, where you treated each child the same, which on the face of it, seems to make sense. Sure, certain principle-based concepts are taught equally to them, but how you teach and apply for each child could be quite different--b/c each of them is quite different. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. Same thing with patients. There is EBP, but at the end of the day, each patient is a unique individual, and what may work for one patient or set of patients may not work for another or others in terms of the realities of application.

So, yes, it's an oversimplification to say, "Hey. No positive or negative racism." The world doesn't work that way, and if you have lived abroad, you most definitely have had the opportunity to see this on a larger scale.

So, I am confused about the very point of your posts. Is it just to point out various kinds of social nomenclature--or are you saying that attempting to mitigate losses amongst groups doesn't work--and that attempting to gain and provide medical leaders to particular groups and communities doesn't work? If so, perhaps if you presented your case and could substantiate it with facts, those is positions to change it would be influenced to do so. But I am not at all certain you would be able to demonstrate this across the board--especially in medicine.

Not reverse racism at all. That would be saying that AA hurts ME or other ORM individuals. I haven't said that at all, perhaps you are confusing my comments with those of others. Many use reverse racism to complain that they aren't getting accepted because the black man is and that is reverse racism against the white applicant. I do not believe whites are discriminated against. I'm already accepted, I'm not even white, and I do not care at all who takes what spots.

The only point I have argued is that AA is awarding "special treatment" towards those of different races, which is a form of racism. It would fall under an unaware/unintentional or even self-righteous form of racism. When an individual or institution goes out of their way to give special help or be "nice" or "make up for past wrong doings" to someone ONLY because of their race. Yamato wrote a lot about these different terms and if you don't agree then that's fine 🙂 People think differently. I was taught AA is racist as it falls under those terms, but many don't agree and it doesn't really matter. I can see how many don't agree as it is immediately beneficial to the individual.

Now, as I have also stated, med school admissions is extremely complex. I do not believe that it is ONLY by race URM's are accepted even with lower stats, but they are given some sort of lower bar statistically on average that neither you, I, nor anyone on this thread could ever know on a national scale. Regardless of the reasons WHY it is done, whether it be to increase fijian doctors in a fijian community, or because they have special other background experiences, whatever. Those are all great reasons to do it that you have mentioned. I do not think it is unfair. I haven't said that either. I think that it is an imperfect system as it reinforces race between individuals rather than eliminating it, but such would probably be impossible so I think they are doing the best they can given the circumstances. I'm glad I'm not in those positions myself. 🙂

Some articles:

http://www.solidarity-us.org/pdfs/cadreschool/fws.kaufman.pdf

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2011/04/25/five-different-types-of-racism-explained/ (just from a google search)

https://books.google.com/books?id=X...DgK#v=onepage&q=self righteous racism&f=false

https://likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/somethingaboutthesubject.pdf article from above that just about every ethnic minority class dealing with racism will cover.

 

[jl lin]

Not reverse racism at all.

You made this point--and once would have been enough if you are just talking academics, but, you seem stuck on it. Really? You kept going on over some relatively newly attributed nomenclature? Shaking head. And in reality, "positive racism" would directly and clearly result in some sense of reverse racism, in that others from another race would lose out compared with those positioned as beneficiaries of "positive racism." This is a logical conclusion.

All human systems are imperfect. You don't seem to like the deal, but then you present nothing better to balance out the scales and add to the need for more URM in various communities. It's kind of hard for you to double back now and say, "Hey. It's positive racism, and thus it is racist in itself--especially when racism at it's core is deemed as unjust. This is that circle again.

I mean, it's wonderful you are all up in the "academics" of your studied nomenclature, but in reality, it's not as simple as clarifying say, the word discrimination--where, in reality, the core definition is not necessarily a good or bad thing--that is, to be discriminating--on the basis of the pure definition of the world. For example, the difference between discrimination--in terms of pure definition--as in being able to discriminate between finer wines, so to speak, versus acts of limiting and illegally discriminating against someone or a group of people. So, once more, re: "positive discrimination," it's unquestionably overly simplistic in the reality of life. In terms of real life application here, it's oxymoronic to use it. It's some turned philosophy that has no functional application in real life--especially in our society and with re: to medical school admissions.

Now, if you have a more perfect or improved plan, by all means, present it. Racism and ethnic disparities continue and sadly will continue to abound. The REAL issue here is not about nomenclature or academic prowess on social philosophies. It's about finding workable solutions, given the many injustices and imperfections in the world. And it's not merely about helping an individual. It's about making a difference on a wider scale.

No offense, but you are killing me here--as in --and once again. And once more, I am pretty much a strongly conservative person. Solutions! It's about solutions. Again, if you have a better one in mind, given your experience and education, please don't hold it back from SDN or the world. Offer it up already.

So here we are with re: to the original post and MS applicants: Do the benefits of such approaches to racial disparity outweigh the risks? It would seem, in general, at least in terms of the primary discussion listed, yes. Perfect? No. What else do you have to share that is germane to the real issue/concern here? Lay it out for us, so that we can consider it.

 

[amad01]

You made this point--and once would have been enough if you are just talking academics, but, you seem stuck on it. Really? You kept going on over some relatively newly attributed nomenclature? Shaking head. And in reality, "positive racism" would directly and clearly result in some sense of reverse racism, in that others from another race would lose out compared with those positioned as beneficiaries of "positive racism." This is a logical conclusion.

All human systems are imperfect. You don't seem to like the deal, but then you present nothing better to balance out the scales and add to the need for more URM in various communities. It's kind of hard for you to double back now and say, "Hey. It's positive racism, and thus it is racist in itself--especially when racism at it's core is deemed as unjust. This is that circle again.

I mean, it's wonderful you are all up in the "academics" of your studied nomenclature, but in reality, it's not as simple as clarifying say, the word discrimination--where, in reality, the core definition is not necessarily a good or bad thing--that is, to be discriminating--on the basis of the pure definition of the world. For example, the difference between discrimination--in terms of pure definition--as in being able to discriminate between finer wines, so to speak, versus acts of limiting and illegally discriminating against someone or a group of people. So, once more, re: "positive discrimination," it's unquestionably overly simplistic in the reality of life. In terms of real life application here, it's oxymoronic to use it. It's some turned philosophy that has no functional application in real life--especially in our society and with re: to medical school admissions.

Now, if you have a more perfect or improved plan, by all means, present it. Racism and ethnic disparities continue and sadly will continue to abound. The REAL issue here is not about nomenclature or academic prowess on social philosophies. It's about finding workable solutions, given the many injustices and imperfections in the world. And it's not merely about helping an individual. It's about making a difference on a wider scale.

No offense, but you are killing me here--as in --and once again. And once more, I am pretty much a strongly conservative person. Solutions! It's about solutions. Again, if you have a better one in mind, given your experience and education, please don't hold it back from SDN or the world. Offer it up already.

So here we are with re: to the original post and MS applicants: Do the benefits of such approaches to racial disparity outweigh the risks? It would seem, in general, at least in terms of the primary discussion listed, yes. Perfect? No. What else do you have to share that is germane to the real issue/concern here? Lay it out for us, so that we can consider it.

Did you read my post? I said whites aren't being discriminated against. Accepting URM applicants is not discriminating against whites. That would be reverse racism and not what is happening IMO although many ORM's will cry that "the urms are taking their spots." That would be assuming that all "spots" were predesignated to be for whites/ORMs.

Of course I don't have an answer or solution. I didn't post to come up with a solution....Who does? That's why these threads are pointless and I have learned to not involve myself anymore haha especially when people get so upset and attack each other over a simple disagreement over a definition of a word. Yes, my fault for being a critic with no proposal for improvement but with these topics there really isn't one. If I did I would probably be a very rich and famous person. Perhaps invent a time machine and somehow stop all races but 1 from procreating? Somehow fix the 6 or so genes that are specific to race so that they cannot vary from person to person? Go into everyone's brain and unlearn racism as taught throughout social institutions since birth? According to Jane Elliot, everyone is pretty much racist. Read more about her http://www.janeelliott.com/ and what she teaches. 👍

 

[jl lin]

Please. This is enough. It is YOU that is NOT reading and comprehending. You keep repeating the same thing ad nauseum I keep telling you that it doesn't matter what you are calling it or defending it--what the hell is your point in posting? You are trying to TEACH all of us on your particular scholastic's definition of racism???? For something you call a pointless thread, you have invested a huge amount of time to make the same, frankly lame (not an insult--an interpretation of the weakness in your presentations, interpretations) argument BASED ON NOMENCLATURE and a philosophy you have totally bought into. Good for you. You drank and ingested and have incorporated the stuff that you were served. It means nothing. You just wasted your time and everyone else's that responded to your inane presentation--which is irrelevant to the original post--and not even purposefully tangential.

Don't responds to me again in this thread or I will have to put you into block mode. You rants serve NO PURPOSE and are not even educational in nature IMHO.

I'm done here. In fact, I'm just going to go ahead and block you.

 

[anbuitachi]

im sure there are way better ways and less controversial ways to get ppl to work in underserved areas than to use affirmative action. a program near me makes students sign a contract to serve in primary care or else pay a huge fine. something like that can easily be created for underserved areas (if it hasn't already been done). then allow everyone to apply to those schools, and make all these students sign the contract to work for underserved area for however amount of years, and boom problem solved. no affirmative action needed.

 

[WingedOx]

im sure there are way better ways and less controversial ways to get ppl to work in underserved areas than to use affirmative action. a program near me makes students sign a contract to serve in primary care or else pay a huge fine. something like that can easily be created for underserved areas (if it hasn't already been done). then allow everyone to apply to those schools, and make all these students sign the contract to work for underserved area for however amount of years, and boom problem solved. no affirmative action needed.

And how would you incentivize such a contract?

 

[KnuxNole]

Anyone concerned with the white/asian population being underrepresented in professional sports like basketball and football?

Nah, them fools need to learn to get better at their game 😛

 

[Flashfan]

im sure there are way better ways and less controversial ways to get ppl to work in underserved areas than to use affirmative action. a program near me makes students sign a contract to serve in primary care or else pay a huge fine. something like that can easily be created for underserved areas (if it hasn't already been done). then allow everyone to apply to those schools, and make all these students sign the contract to work for underserved area for however amount of years, and boom problem solved. no affirmative action needed.

But how would you get those underserved patients to trust their doctors? We are less than 50 years away from forced sterilization and gynecological experiments on AA women and the Tuskegee experiments on syphilis. In the 60s there were rumors that bc pills were different for whites and blacks. Even now patient outcomes are not the same for cancer, heart disease and stroke based on race. When one looks at the hard facts that URMs still serve as ambassadors to the URM communities, it ceases to be about admission and it becomes about educating practicing physicians that make a difference.

 

[anbuitachi]

And how would you incentivize such a contract?

Its med school. Why do you need to incentivizwe. Ppl will line up

 

[anbuitachi]

But how would you get those underserved patients to trust their doctors? We are less than 50 years away from forced sterilization and gynecological experiments on AA women and the Tuskegee experiments on syphilis. In the 60s there were rumors that bc pills were different for whites and blacks. Even now patient outcomes are not the same for cancer, heart disease and stroke based on race. When one looks at the hard facts that URMs still serve as ambassadors to the URM communities, it ceases to be about admission and it becomes about educating practicing physicians that make a difference.

Patient education.
A semi related issue to this is that ppl in America loves to fix results/effects instead of the cause. That is why today's society is so divided. Its something that you don't see as much in other developed countries. Students are bad at math? No problem let's make math tests easier.
Ppl don't want to study for an exam yet still want to get into specialized high schools? No problem let's change the criteria to get these kids in. (NYC specialized hs)

No one targets the real underlying causes. Why are minorities having lower scores? Why are they poorer in general? Why do we even need affirmative action in 2014???

Personally this bothers me because I'm an immigrant who grew up in a poor country. I definitely face my share of racial discriminations and Whatnots after coming here in addition to language/cultural barriers. Back in my country, the government doesn't help and ppl are forced to change and excel. Here in america people look for excuses and relies on government to bail them out. If government doesn't they complain and protest. No one thinks that perhaps the changes should be coming from within. The blame is never on yourself here and always on some external factor. As long as this doesn't change I don't see a bright future for this country.

 

[WingedOx]

Its med school. Why do you need to incentivizwe. Ppl will line up

ummmm... so for lowered admissions standards? Tuition breaks? You've either explained this poorly or haven't thought about the specifics of this.