What about those who may not have the type of healthy behavioral approaches you may have? Would they be considered less-than or below par, especially if compared to other normal BMI-type candidates? As a psychologist, do you focus on this one variable to the point to where others aren't considered equally? It brings up the idea of academic standardized tests. Do we simply say that those who score below certain percentiles on an exam are not as smart, motivated or goal striving? I understand the concept for wanting to weed out massive amounts of applicants via an "objective" score, however it really does leave out other competing and equally relevant factors that can contribute to success.
Personal story: After my mother and I were in a car accident when I was 7 years old I had slowly become encapsulated with learning disabilities. From 7 years of age until present I was always classified as learning disabled, especially with math. Going through middle and high school was not fun as I was always "special" in terms of being provided watered-down versions of tests, especially the TAKS test when I was a senior in high school. At no point did any of these school diagnosticians really seek to help me hone in and manage my learning disabilities, and as a kid and an eventual teenager, I was submissive to their authority and was under the assumption they knew best. I never applied myself in academics in grade school, all I did was focus on playing the trombone and got really really good at it for 15 years. I never took proper algebra or geometry as it was not required under my learning disability services in school. I scored a 13 on the ACT, however I was already accepted to Juilliard and other conservatories of music with the set mind that I would become a professional musician and never need to focus on academics (naive, I know). The point is, when the point in my life came to make the decision to switch careers, it was hard one, especially with the self-defeating prophecy I seemed to be fulfilling towards taking college-level academics in my undergrad. Rather than focusing on what my "normal" counterparts in class did, I focused on how I could function and how I could function doing it well. Admittedly, I was slow, taking 2-3 classes a semester, balancing out hard classes with less effortful ones to build up strength in how I studied. I started back at a community college and worked my way up to a university and graduated with a 3.75. I took multiple statistics courses in college with A's in both, these all became validating factors that the system was broke and that if the system had its way, I wouldn't have seen a B.A. hanging on my wall let alone a master's. The same is holding true with the GRE, this factor that was suppose to predict my performance in graduate school, especially the first year couldn't have been more wrong. I am getting A's in neuro-related courses, in doctoral level courses while researching and maintaing an active poster, manuscript and clinical life.
The moral to this story is, looking at one specific variable is harmful and not always representative, and it really is disheartening to see our profession be the one falling into the trap when we know so much about assessments, variability, diagnoses, etc. Subjectively, I feel like I will have to work much harder than a lot of my colleagues to achieve what they are doing...and that's fine, I love impossible goals
. I hope that people are not biased against larger applicants whether it be implicitly or explicitly, the net result is the same towards the applicant.
