Asking about LGBTQ+ identity on secondary application

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Sone people in this thread seem to think this is all about admitting under-qualified LGBT people instead of qualified straight people.

Maybe, just maybe, there are LGBT people who are just as qualified (or, in some cases, even more qualified!) AND have some valuable life experiences to share with their medical school class and with the medical profession. Just my two cents.

It’s a recruiting problem, not that there aren’t qualified applicants.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

It seems as though the answer is self awareness of our own biases and how previous experiences affect our thoughts and ideas we have about others and our world for that matter. I feel that awareness is a powerful first step in being able to disconnect from previous experiences and not let them define us or how we think of others. This is moving the needle in the right direction in my view. YMMV

Patients don't want similarly identifying providers because of a lack of self awareness

 

[deleted480308]

As MANY people have said already, representation MATTERS. Nobody is talking about quotas. People often feel more comfortable going to physicians who look and identify similarly to they do. People feel comfortable seeking care from people who they can relate to. This applies to not only race, but also LGBTQIA, gender, etc. If we don't recruit URMs, we'll have even more ORMs than we already do. I really don't think we need to revert back to the days of medicine where doctors were all white, cis, hetero, males.

If you have a stated goal percentage per demographic (and you do if the goal is whatever number makes someone no longer a urm). THen yes, you are discriminating with a quota as a metric for “success” of your discrimination

 

[82Scout]

As a veteran, we are asked by every employer and school what our veteran status is and whether we fall under one of the protected veteran categories. I don't see whats wrong with asking these questions as well to provide the applicant with resources/protections. The only caveat is that the applicant should always be given an opt out/decline to answer.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

As a veteran, we are asked by every employer and school what our veteran status is and whether we fall under one of the protected veteran categories. I don't see whats wrong with asking these questions as well to provide the applicant with resources/protections. The only caveat is that the applicant should always be given an opt out/decline to answer.

I’ve personally never felt discriminated against for being military (except for the time a chipotle manager threw a bowl of food at me when I asked if they had a military discount), but plenty of LGBT people are afraid they might be for their status, and rightfully so.

 

[premed20172017]

If you have a stated goal percentage per demographic (and you do if the goal is whatever number makes someone no longer a urm). THen yes, you are discriminating with a quota as a metric for “success” of your discrimination

@LizzyM, as an active member of a medical school faculty, do you have a quota for LGBTQIA?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wanting to ensure that a class is diverse is NOT the same thing as having a quota system.

Edit: @sb247 , check out the Bakke Case, which stipulates that racial quotas in (med school) admissions are unconstitutional. Diversity and affirmative action are not the same as quotas. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke - Wikipedia

 

[deleted480308]

It's discrimination to you, because you are viewing acceptances as set quotas and the URM's that are accepted as "taking" spots from you. When in reality these are qualified applicants at the end of the day, and their underrepresentation is by definition not infringing upon your ability to get into a medical school. It's important and necessary to have pipelines (which is not preferential admittance), because without those to eliminate barriers faced by URMs, there would be only one type of doctor.

It’s patronizing to imply a URM applicant couldn’t compete in admission based on merit devoid of demographic preferences.

I think the best performers should get in and i don’t think the URM applicants are incapable of making the cut,

 

[deleted480308]

Who said anything about quotas? It is the difference between saying "___ need not apply" and "Welcome, ___. We hope you will consider our school when you apply/choose among offers you have." Schools have outreach with special receptions the night before interviews and in conjunction with second look to let appliants/candidates know that they will find a welcoming community and won't the the "only" in a sea of "others". Are you against that?

Special receptions or preferential admission based on race or sexual preference/identity? No. I don’t think it’s appropriate to single out people based on those things.

I do agree, and have never said otherwise, that it’s totally appropriate to state openly that everyone is welcome to apply and will be given equal consideration without a school/residency holding their gender/orientation/race/identity as a negative when ranking them against other candidates.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

If you have a stated goal percentage per demographic (and you do if the goal is whatever number makes someone no longer a urm). THen yes, you are discriminating with a quota as a metric for “success” of your discrimination

Not sure where anyone says "we want % of xyz". You need to remove this mindset of yours because you're tiptoeing into territory I don't think you want to be perceived as going into. What's coming off is that you don't believe an applicant can be qualified AND URM/low income/lgbt (all minority categories). When in fact they can, and what schools want to encourage (which no, is not discriminating) is these applicants who are qualified but may face barriers because of these minority statuses to apply.

 

[Heliobacter]

It’s patronizing to imply a URM applicant couldn’t compete in admission based on merit devoid of demographic preferences.

I think the best performers should get in and i don’t think the URM applicants are incapable of making the cut,

While there are many socially/structurally-disadvantaged individuals who have been able to jump through all the hoops, by definition it takes more for members of certain groups to attain the same external markers of "competitively". For gender and sexual minorities, a higher proportion do not have access to a strong support system in the form of family, and that makes it more difficult for them to be competitive in the same ways (i.e. lacking financial stability to do certain activities or lacking social capital to gain access to certain opportunities).

Nobody is saying that URM applicants can't compete in admission based on merit, but perceived merit is itself a function of demographic. Nobody is saying that minorities should get preferential admission either, but it is an aspect of a person's background that should be taken into account in holistic considerations.

Isn't this the whole point of social determinants of health? Different people start at different bars by virtue of their lived experiences. Haven't you seen that equity vs. equality graphic?

 

[TwoHighways]

We as human beings have more in common on a fundamental basis than we do differences, which in my view are largely socially constructed and to the detriment of mankind. I don’t know what it means to be (insert whatever appropriate minority group) in America, but on a fundamental level have experienced the entire breadth of human emotion and can appreciate that. Give me 30 minutes to interact with a patient instead of five, and I can connect with just about anyone, build rapport, and provide excellent care. We need fundamental changes to the system in order to create this sort of clinical environment. If you care about outcomes, changing the system will do infinitely more than changing the provider demos.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

It’s patronizing to imply a URM applicant couldn’t compete in admission based on merit devoid of demographic preferences.

I think the best performers should get in and i don’t think the URM applicants are incapable of making the cut,

its patronizing to imply that they only do because of imaginary "discrimination" by adcoms

 

[Heliobacter]

We as human beings have more in common on a fundamental basis than we do differences, which in my view are largely socially constructed and to the detriment of mankind. I don’t know what it means to be (insert whatever appropriate minority group) in America, but on a fundamental level have experienced the entire breadth of human emotion and can appreciate that. Give me 30 minutes to interact with a patient instead of five, and I can connect with just about anyone, build rapport, and provide excellent care. We need fundamental changes to the system in order to create this sort of clinical environment. If you care about outcomes, changing the system will do infinitely more than changing the provider demos.

You've been interacting with us for arguably more than 30 minutes. Why haven't we connected?

 

[deleted480308]

@LizzyM, as an active member of a medical school faculty, do you have a quota for LGBTQIA?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wanting to ensure that a class is diverse is NOT the same thing as having a quota system.

Edit: @sb247 , check out the Bakke Case, which stipulates that racial quotas in med school admissions are unconstitutional. Diversity and affirmative action are not the same as quotas. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke - Wikipedia

That’s just semantics. If there is a number/percentage that means you missed it and need more of any demographic, there is a quota. So having a goal of “we must be diverse” means there is a metric that you are measuring yourself against and you risk preferential and discriminatory admissions.

A goal of “we need to make sure we aren’t holding lgbtq against someone” is absolutely appropriate. Discrimination is wrong. A goal of “our lgbtq class representation should match the general population” is a quota and shouldn’t happen because, again, discrimination is wrong.

All a school should do is weigh each applicant on their merits, and demographics are not merits

 

[deleted480308]

its patronizing to imply that they only do because of imaginary "discrimination" by adcoms

Didn’t say “only” do. Some are clearly top tier candidates

But discrimination by adcoms for urm is not imaginary, it’s literally shown in the admission stats they put out (which were posted in the “what are my chances” subforum here for awhile.

I think there would still be deserving urm candidates without that discrimination

 

[deleted480308]

Not sure where anyone says "we want % of xyz". You need to remove this mindset of yours because you're tiptoeing into territory I don't think you want to be perceived as going into. What's coming off is that you don't believe an applicant can be qualified AND URM/low income/lgbt (all minority categories). When in fact they can, and what schools want to encourage (which no, is not discriminating) is these applicants who are qualified but may face barriers because of these minority statuses to apply.

I’ve explicitly stated otherwise. Don’t project other people’s crap on me

And yes, there is a stated goal of demographics in med school matching demographics of the general population. It’s the literal meaning of the phrase URM

 

[deleted927529]

Why do patients feel as though they need to be seen by someone that identifies similarly? How do we break this? Personally, I’d have no problems discussing my health with anyone qualified, regardless of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Patients withhold information from their doctors all the time for far less than a difference in social grouping. I've withheld being LGBT from my PCP before. Am I the problem for trying to protect myself?

I am glad that you can share every attribute of yours freely without fearing reprisal.

 

[TwoHighways]

You've been interacting with us for arguably more than 30 minutes. Why haven't we connected?

Difficult to connect in the context of a political discussion when people’s biases invariably play a central role to their thinking on it.

Tell me about yourself. What drew you to medicine?

I’ll start. I took a very non-traditional path to medicine. Was a piss poor, unmotivated undergrad that graduated with a 2.78 overall GPA and a BS in wildlife management. Long story short, I entered the fire service and as I was going through my paramedic training, realized that I had a passion for the material and everything I was learning. It also dawned on me that we have some structural problems in how we provide health care in this country. And the other thing that hit me was how poorly chronic disease is managed and how preventable that I felt most all of it was. So I embarked on a long journey of retaking prerequisites and acing everything along the way and felt I did well enough on the MCAT to demonstrate academic proficiency. My passion for applying to medical school goes far beyond just caring for people. I want to keep them out of the hospitals all together. I’m sick of metabolically deranged people being the norm. I’m convinced that the nutritional environment in our country has contributed to so much of what ails us.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

I’ve explicitly stated otherwise. Don’t project other people’s crap on me

And yes, there is a stated goal of demographics in med school matching demographics of the general population. It’s the literal meaning of the phrase URM

the literal definition of URM is underrepresented in medicine not society is which is why some minorities are not actually URM. To address your other comment, from where I stand it seems like you’re projecting your own insecurities and frustrations into something that doesnt really have any bearing on your success or future as a physician. I’m not puting anything onto you that you aren’t projecting yourself.

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

Didn’t say “only” do. Some are clearly top tier candidates

But discrimination by adcoms for urm is not imaginary, it’s literally shown in the admission stats they put out (which were posted in the “what are my chances” subforum here for awhile.

I think there would still be deserving urm candidates without that discrimination

*some* are clearly top tier applicants- no all of them are top tier applicants or else they would not have gotten into medical school.

 

[valkirieas]

For those who think trying to holistically evaluate an applicant based on external factors (such as SES, sexuality, gender, etc affecting access to opportunities, quality of education, social support, etc) is discrimination...

Academic performance doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why URM may be considered differently, not because they're incapable of success, but because there's a lot that cannot be determined about a candidate's potential from metrics which are often skewed and laden with institutional bias...The MCAT, for example, like SAT/ACT scores: there's a number of studies which show that performance on standardized tests has more to do with financial resources than ability.

No one is saying to admit underqualified candidates but merely that these external factors must be considered in the wider social context to understand an applicant's ability holistically. I really don't understand why this concept is so difficult for many in this thread to grasp.

 

[Heliobacter]

Difficult to connect in the context of a political discussion when people’s biases invariably play a central role to their thinking on it.

Tell me about yourself. What drew you to medicine?

In as few words as possible as to not detract from the thread as much, but the prospect of being able to work with many people who come from many different lived experiences and identities is sure compelling. I'm also interested in serving as a role model for others with some of my own specific set of identities to see that just because they hold this combination of identities that they can be just as successful as others. My own academic interests are not related to those identities, but I think that it is important to amplify the message that people from certain groups can accomplish just the same as their more privileged counterparts.

You're right that I hold certain identities and that my intersectional experiences have certainly influenced my thinking, but calling this a political discussion already imposes some other biases onto the situation. Don't conflate suffering and discrimination with politics. If you don't believe it, it's not automatically "politics". Some people's whole lives depend on the "political" choices of others.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What's coming off is that you don't believe an applicant can be qualified AND URM/low income/lgbt (all minority categories).

That may be what you want him to be saying so you can argue against it, but he has actually said otherwise multiple times. Literally in this thread, he said:

It’s patronizing to imply a URM applicant couldn’t compete in admission based on merit devoid of demographic preferences.

I think the best performers should get in and i don’t think the URM applicants are incapable of making the cut,

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

*some* are clearly top tier applicants- no all of them are top tier applicants or else they would not have gotten into medical school.

What? There are plenty of people who are not top tier applicants who get into med school. My friend with the 500 MCAT wasn’t a top tier applicant, but he’s still in my MS1 class along with a number of people who are also mid-tier applicants at best (myself included).

 

[AMCASTuesdays]

What? There are plenty of people who are not top tier applicants who get into med school. My friend with the 500 MCAT wasn’t a top tier applicant, but he’s still in my MS1 class along with a number of people who are also mid-tier applicants at best (myself included).

What i mean is everyone who getd into med school is atop tier applicant in that they had something to show that spoke to their competency as a student and professional and that gained them admission. Doesnt have to be test scores

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What i mean is everyone who getd into med school is atop tier applicant in that they had something to show that spoke to their competency as a student and professional and that gained them admission. Doesnt have to be test scores

Oh, so you’re just arguing semantics. Not particularly useful given that people have different definitions of what makes a top tier applicant.

 

[deleted480308]

What i mean is everyone who getd into med school is atop tier applicant in that they had something to show that spoke to their competency as a student and professional and that gained them admission. Doesnt have to be test scores

And my argument is that demographics (race, identity, sexual preference,etc) should not be considered a criteria. You can use test scores,grades , charity work, leadership, etc but not demographics which are currently used to change likelihood of admission after controlling for grades/mcat

 

[deleted972488]

demographics which are currently used to change likelihood of admission after controlling for grades/mcat

Do you have a source showing that LGBT matriculants have lower GPAs/MCAT than non-LGBT matriculants?

 

[deleted480308]

the literal definition of URM is underrepresented in medicine not society is which is why some minorities are not actually URM. To address your other comment, from where I stand it seems like you’re projecting your own insecurities and frustrations into something that doesnt really have any bearing on your success or future as a physician. I’m not puting anything onto you that you aren’t projecting yourself.

Lots of discrimination doesn’t impact me, still wrong, still don’t like it, still shouldn’t happen

 

[deleted480308]

Do you have a source showing that LGBT matriculants have lower GPAs/MCAT than non-LGBT matriculants?

We have the racial data (from either amcas or aamc). I haven’t seen lgbtq data

 

[deleted972488]

I haven’t seen lgbtq data

Right, so I wouldn't necessarily assume it's the case, then.

 

[Sagebrush]

And my argument is that demographics (race, identity, sexual preference,etc) should not be considered a criteria. You can use test scores,grades , charity work, leadership, etc but not demographics which are currently used to change likelihood of admission after controlling for grades/mcat

Say we got a group of people 50 people with the exact same level of intelligence, drive to succeed, etc (all the intrinsic factors associated with success in medical school applications). Do you think that all of them would have the exact same likelihood of being able to succeed in medical school admissions? You think that the kid who grew up with a single mom who brought home $15,000 a year to support 3 kids, who works during school to help with bills, and the kid who got kicked out of his parent's house at 15 for being gay, who lives in his car while going to school, and the kid who's the only child of two physicians who pay all tuition/COL really have the exact same likelihood of going to the same university, getting the same GPA, getting the same MCAT, and having completely comparable volunteering and leadership experience?

 

[deleted480308]

Right, so I wouldn't necessarily assume it's the case, then.

But it is the case racially, and the motivations for tracking lgbtq are exactly the same. But to be clear, I agree that I haven’t seen objective data on how this movement impacts acceptance likelihood after controlling for grade/mcat

 

[deleted480308]

Say we got a group of people 50 people with the exact same level of intelligence, drive to succeed, etc (all the intrinsic factors associated with success in medical school applications). Do you think that all of them would have the exact same likelihood of being able to succeed in medical school admissions? You think that the kid who grew up with a single mom who brought home $15,000 a year to support 3 kids, who works during school to help with bills, and the kid who got kicked out of his parent's house at 15 for being gay, who lives in his car while going to school, and the kid who's the only child of two physicians who pay all tuition/COL really have the exact same likelihood of going to the same university, getting the same GPA, getting the same MCAT, and having completely comparable volunteering and leadership experience?

What I think is that it’s a poor surrogate marker for those examples to assume the well off one is a particular race and the not so well off is another particular race. It’s patronizing and prejudiced to assume that story line based off of race/sexual preference.

Tracking by demographics doesn’t capture that kind of story. Defending discrimination with stories like that assumes an awful lot of someone based on their race/sexual preference

 

[kingdomheart]

But it is the case racially, and the motivations for tracking lgbtq are exactly the same. But to be clear, I agree that I haven’t seen objective data on how this movement impacts acceptance likelihood after controlling for grade/mcat

Late to this thread, so idk if this has been mentioned. But $10 says that you're a white male from a relatively upper SES background?

 

[deleted480308]

Late to this thread, so idk if this has been mentioned. But $10 says that you're a white male from a relatively upper SES background?

Both irrelevant and incorrect

 

[Sagebrush]

What I think is that it’s a poor surrogate marker for those examples to assume the well off one is a particular race and the not so well off is another particular race. It’s patronizing and prejudiced to assume that story line based off of race/sexual preference.

Tracking by demographics doesn’t capture that kind of story. Defending discrimination with stories like that assumes an awful lot of someone based on their race/sexual preference

Sadly many of these stories still occur along demographic lines. They shouldn't, but they do. And demographics absolutely are not the be-all, end-all - but they are an indication that, due to the significant role that demographic lines play in many of these stories, someone's application may warrant a closer look to see if they have been placed at a disadvantage in life. Ideally this occurs with every application, but it doesn't hurt to have an extra "caution sign" in place for people belonging to groups that are more consistently placed at a disadvantage.

 

[theKingLT]

Hi everyone! I'm a current M1 working with our LGBTQ+ student group and some faculty on revamping our secondary app. For the first time last year we asked about LGBTQ+ identities (1 q about sexual orientation, another about gender identity), both with several options (I don't know specifics, but fairly limited options - I think sexuality just had gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight), "other", and "Prefer not to answer". If people selected a sexual or gender minority answer or "other", another box popped up asking something like, "Would you like us to email you more information on the resources available here?" Next year, we are trying hard to provide a disclaimer as to *why* we ask, to clear up any confusion and maybe quell some fears about being honest. But in talking about it, we realized that many applicants (myself included) do not see themselves reflected in the options we gave. So for that reason, we want to change the question for next year to be more inclusive.
Here is why we ask the question:

• General demographics
• To see how LGBTQ+ applicants are progressing through the admissions cycle (e.g., how many are invited for interview? How many ) to identify gaps, & to better recruit/support LGBTQ+ folks during the cycle
• To provide more info about resources (including to extend an invitation to meet with a current LGBTQ+ student for coffee during the interview, should you be offered one, as well as LGBTQ+-related events during our Second Look-type event)
• To signal that we are an institution that encourages individuals to be honest about who they are, and one that supports the LGBTQ+ community (and I believe we are such an institution - with lots of active groups for students and faculty, great health insurance that covers gender-affirming interventions, many faculty and providers at our affiliated hospital offering those gender-affirming interventions, explicit employment and discrimination protections, LGBTQ+ and trans health clinics, etc.)

We do NOT ask it to:

• Provide automatic interview or acceptance if you're gay
• I don't even think interviewers are privy to this information

We toyed with the idea of just having a basic question like, "Do you identify as a gender or sexual minority?" But then, we wouldn't be able to get specific about cycle tracking (e.g., Are trans folks being treated unfairly in the process? Are gay men more likely than queer women to be accepted, but less likely to come?) which is one of the main goals of asking it. We are also not crazy about the idea of offering 20 million options, because it will *still* leave out some people and probably just dilute the data to such small N's that it would render it meaningless.
Given that info, how would you prefer this question to be asked on a secondary application? Thoughts?
Thank you!

Hoping to get this thread back on track. I think a disclaimer is a good idea but you need to be specific on how the info is used (ie. Do interviewers have access to individual responses, are they factored into admissions decisions, is the data just used aggregately to assess group outcomes, etc.). Second i would recommend expanding your other option to be more inclusive, just keep your categories of analysis more aggregated when you do your outcomes analysis to retain statistical power. Maybe in a few years you'll have enough aggregate data to put to use the more specific options that you mention such as trans applicants

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Late to this thread, so idk if this has been mentioned. But $10 says that you're a white male from a relatively upper SES background?

Not a good look.

 

[kingdomheart]

Not a good look.

Wasnt meant to be taken seriously. And its a likely explanation for why the user would think race and gpa/mcat are unrelated. However, I was wrong.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Wasnt meant to be taken seriously. And its a likely explanation for why the user would think race and gpa/mcat are unrelated. However, I was wrong.

Our country has a long and dark history predicated on making assumptions about people based on their race/gender, dont pretend it's different when the shoe is on the other foot. And please, don't bring out the "Nah I was joking", no one's fooled.

 

[kingdomheart]

Our country has a long and dark history predicated on making assumptions about people based on their race/gender, dont pretend it's different when the shoe is on the other foot. And please, don't bring out the "Nah I was joking", no one's fooled.

Its more likely someone of the demographic I mentioned is not able to relate to the other demographic in question here. And thats just how society is.

And no this is not the same. American Whites have never had a dark history in this country that is anyway comparable to African-Americans. So you can't compare the two.

 

[LizzyM]

In the spring and summer as applicants are writing their essays, some applicants wonder if they should disclose their gender identity, etc. Often this is couched in a statement about medicine being a conservative field or some such. Sometimes it is pointed out that school X actually asks the question on its secondary and that is evidence that at least school X is friendly to the LGBTQI community.

Now it is early winter and we have people wigged out over the fact that schools are asking these questions either to discrminate against such applicants (can the individual reviewers see this information?) or to make admission decisions that aim to fill quotas of what would be otherwise unworthy candidates.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Its more likely someone of the demographic I mentioned is not able to relate to the other demographic in question here. And thats just how society is.

You’re not helping yourself here.

 

[kingdomheart]

You’re not helping yourself here.

Me saying that a white american cannot relate to the struggles of an African-American?

Edit: They can certainly understand it, but not relate to it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Me saying that a white american cannot relate to the struggles of an African-American?

Edit: They can certainly understand it, but not relate to it.

No the part I actually quoted.

 

[kingdomheart]

No the part I actually quoted.

It comes across poorly worded. But was meant to state what I said in the previous comment. Sorry if that was unclear or came across offensive in any way. Not my intentions.