Can being Asian still make you a URM?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
adizzle87

adizzle87

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
844
Reaction score
2
Members do not see this ad.
While I was registering for the DAT a while back the application asked me if I considered myself an underepresented minority. I know that Asian Americans are over-represented in dentistry, at least when you compare the percentage of Asians in the AADSAS applicant pool vs the percentage of Asians in the American population as a whole.

I don't intend on "banking" on the whole minority status at all. But because I was asked this question I just wanted to be sure I got the definition of this term right. I'm sure that Latinos and African Americans are considered URM, but how about subgroups of Asian like those whose ethnic backgrounds are Cambodian, Laotian, Hmong, Cantonese, Thai, etc? I notice that a lot of schools have students who are Korean, Chinese (mostly Taiwanese), and Vietnamese. So would being an "other" Asian make one an underrepresented minority?
 
Last edited:
I'm working with the Community Outreach Director at one of the dental schools, and he's working on a project that helps URM get into dental school by providing help with the application process, and he said that he considers certain Asian groups to be URM. So Asians such as Philipinos, Hmong, and others that you mentioned would probably count, but he said that because they're technically Asian, it's up to them to be able to support the claim that they are URM, ie, know about the population statistics that would qualify you as such.
 
Oh also, while we're at it. If you're an URM, applying to or planning to apply to dental school, and are in the LA area, send me a PM, I have much to tell you about this program.
 
Yea man our grades are just too damn high. way too many asains going into these professional schools. Definitely not urm
 
Think about the "R" in URM...represented. I fail to see how asians are under represented in just about any form of academia. I know that "asians" isn't very distinct as there are many, many countries that make that group up. But what about Caucasians? Can we split our group into Germans, English, Norwegians, Irish, etc?

I don't want to start another Affirmative Action thing (the last thing these forums need is another one of those!) but I just don't see the point of putting any preference towards the color of someones skin. Now, if there was economic hardship, that's a different story and should be applied to anyone in those circumstances, not just a chosen set of colors. But straight up, color of your skin?? Doesn't make sense to me. Just my opinion.
 
PDizzle said:
Think about the "R" in URM...represented. I fail to see how asians are under represented in just about any form of academia. I know that "asians" isn't very distinct as there are many, many countries that make that group up. But what about Caucasians? Can we split our group into Germans, English, Norwegians, Irish, etc?

I don't want to start another Affirmative Action thing (the last thing these forums need is another one of those!) but I just don't see the point of putting any preference towards the color of someones skin. Now, if there was economic hardship, that's a different story and should be applied to anyone in those circumstances, not just a chosen set of colors. But straight up, color of your skin?? Doesn't make sense to me. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's quite the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I see, caucasian ethnicity blurs: in that a german is equally likely to marry an italian as another german. This could be due to caucasians being around north america for generally longer and identifying themselves as americans rather than germans or italians... Whereas when asians marry they usually marry within their ethnicity, like a korean will usually marry another korean, and is very unlikely to marry a chinese or japanese. I think it's easier to distinguish what people are when they do this...
 
It depends, certain Euro groups don't like each other, so they wouldn't necessarily marry or not, or whatever. My guess is that within the next 75 years we'll finally be able to put all of this behind us, and be done with a lot of this confusion.

To the OP: If you feel like you are a URM, honestly, put it, and don't give it a second thought. 95% chance they're not going to ask one way or another.

Having to split up the already vague terms of Asian or African or Caucasian just goes to prove that they weren't well thought out in the first place. Who's more Asian, someone from Japan or someone from Iran, they're both from Asia.

Anyways, sorry, like PD said before, no reason to get this any more off topic.
 
PDizzle said:
Think about the "R" in URM...represented. I fail to see how asians are under represented in just about any form of academia. I know that "asians" isn't very distinct as there are many, many countries that make that group up. But what about Caucasians? Can we split our group into Germans, English, Norwegians, Irish, etc?
Click to expand...

If we look at the stats for immigrants and domestic born children from Laos, Cambodia and other southern Asian cultures, they tend to under perform comparative to the other Asian groups. The rates of poverty, crime, and health disparities are much higher. I think this makes it difficult for them to compete within this "group of people."

Not meant to be offensive: That's why I don't see the point of breaking down "Caucasians" especially in America when it all blends anyway. I don't think the system works for them or against them. I think most Asians would settle for a system that would give them a 50/50 decision instead of a 20/80 system. (Random numbers)

Personally, I would like to see no preference in decisions and base completely on merit. But situational issues such as poverty has to play an issue and these preferences may help break the cycle. These groups of Asians are misunderstood, stereotyped and held down by a system that was meant to do good.

Btw, I am Asian but not Southeast. Sorry if this sounds ranty..but it is important to talk about.
 
i think that if a group of people are given preference because of their nationality then I think it needs to be consistent throughout. for example, blacks, hispanic and natives are considered to be URM. I'm get it but why aren't cambodian's considered URM? Yes they belong under the "Asian" umbrella but how many cambodian docs are there in the USA? NOT many. Chinese probably makes up the majority of the DOCs population. If 80% of asians are DOCs then less than 5% of Cambodians are docs. It's unfair to classify URM base on someone being asian. Asian is not a language. I don't speak asian. I speak khmer. The system is all screwed up.


bandofoutsiders said:
If we look at the stats for immigrants and domestic born children from Laos, Cambodia and other southern Asian cultures, they tend to under perform comparative to the other Asian groups. The rates of poverty, crime, and health disparities are much higher. I think this makes it difficult for them to compete within this "group of people."

Not meant to be offensive: That's why I don't see the point of breaking down "Caucasians" especially in America when it all blends anyway. I don't think the system works for them or against them. I think most Asians would settle for a system that would give them a 50/50 decision instead of a 20/80 system. (Random numbers)

Personally, I would like to see no preference in decisions and base completely on merit. But situational issues such as poverty has to play an issue and these preferences may help break the cycle. These groups of Asians are misunderstood, stereotyped and held down by a system that was meant to do good.

Btw, I am Asian but not Southeast. Sorry if this sounds ranty..but it is important to talk about.
Click to expand...
 
A system that serves to achieve such a vague concept as "diversity" through something so superficial as skin color/nationality is what's the REALLY screwed up thing about all of this URM nonsense.
 
scurred09 said:
It's unfair to classify URM base on someone being asian. Asian is not a language. I don't speak asian. I speak khmer. The system is all screwed up.
Click to expand...

'Asian' is not a language. 'Black' isn't a language either. So what? What's your point?
 
Waitlisted2009 said:
Is Indian from India a URM? thats Asia by some people and not others.
Click to expand...

What about an applicant whose parents were from India, but they themselves were born in America and native to this country. Doesn't that make them a Native American Indian? Therefore a URM?
 
What about a white girl from South Africa who moved to the states, is she African-American? Therefore a URM? There are people who go to my undergrad that got in this way.

I guess some people are so desperate for a handout since they can't make it by merit alone, that they will go on looking for loopholes in the system to exploit. I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere that says Cambodians are not really Asian, and are somehow a URM......
 
You see all these crazy questions and scenarios? Are you an URM or not? First generation or born US citizen? I wouldn't be surprised if some day they break out a skin color chart and quantify just how, "black" you are, then give you a rating!...
"Hey, I'm a #68 black person. What are you?"
"I'm only a #48 black person but next summer I'm gonna hang outside a lot more and maybe get that bumped up to #55 black person"

The sooner we move past the color of the skin thing, the better. I'm just so sick of it already.

Again, if your past has economic or social hardship, that's different, but it should be applied to EVERYONE, including those white kids from the projects. It's so simple to me...maybe I just don't get it.
 
PDizzle said:
You see all these crazy questions and scenarios? Are you an URM or not? First generation or born US citizen? I wouldn't be surprised if some day they break out a skin color chart and quantify just how, "black" you are, then give you a rating!...
"Hey, I'm a #68 black person. What are you?"
"I'm only a #48 black person but next summer I'm gonna hang outside a lot more and maybe get that bumped up to #55 black person"

The sooner we move past the color of the skin thing, the better. I'm just so sick of it already.

Again, if your past has economic or social hardship, that's different, but it should be applied to EVERYONE, including those white kids from the projects. It's so simple to me...maybe I just don't get it.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY! The longer we, essentially, discriminate from color to color, the long discrimination will be present. Let the best candidate win. The government and institutions love diversity. Who wants to be a diversity quota anyway?
 
This thread and others like it are pretty stupid. Say whatever you want but many schools ask for a 2x2 photo. I guess you could send a photo of someone else, but the school will SEE YOU IN PERSON during the interview. They will see you!! What about that don't you get? One last time... they will see you during the interview! The only exception is if you get in without an interview (some schools do this but it's extremely rare) or if your interviewer is blind.
 
I find it funny how everyone has all the energy in the world to complain about how race based admissions are unfair but no one talks about legacy admissions.

Time magazine published the SAT scores of several famous people and President Bush had a score in the 1200s. 1200s wouldn't get a URM anywhere near Yale. I don't see people complaining about legacies anywhere near as much as they love to gripe about URMs getting spots.

It's tacky to go after the little guy when there's a bigger dog stealing from your food bowl (sorry, feeding the dogs right now).

For the record, I'm not a URM and I don't like race playing a role in admissions either but think about all the advantages I have by just being here today and having the opportunity to apply to dental school. The world is not fair but trust me you definitely have waaaaaaaaaaay more advantages than 90% of the people on this planet. There's comes a point where you have to just stop and accept a little self responsibility for not getting into a particular school.
 
Last edited:
Lemons said:
True, but it's not anywhere near Yale standards.
Click to expand...

The world doesn't run on SAT scores and GPA. Yale's not naive. They know who to accept without question. It's the high SAT scores from rural backgrounds that have trouble sustaining a high standard of living. They grew up poor and don't know how to sustain a higher income. You'll find something similar in dentistry, because most dentists can't retire. Not after having spent their entire income in detrimental ways.
 
Lemons said:
I find it funny how everyone has all the energy in the world to complain about how race based admissions are unfair but no one talks about legacy admissions.

Time magazine published the SAT scores of several famous people and President Bush had a score in the 1200s. 1200s wouldn't get a URM anywhere near Yale. I don't see people complaining about legacies anywhere near as much as they love to gripe about URMs getting spots.

It's tacky to go after the little guy when there's a bigger dog stealing from your food bowl (sorry, feeding the dogs right now).

For the record, I'm not a URM and I don't like race playing a role in admissions either but think about all the advantages I have by just being here today and having the opportunity to apply to dental school. The world is not fair but trust me you definitely have waaaaaaaaaaay more advantages than 90% of the people on this planet. There's comes a point where you have to just stop and accept a little self responsibility for not getting into a particular school.
Click to expand...

A 1200 in those days is exceptional. Over the years, SAT scoring has changed in favor of higher scores by adding points here and there. Much like adding 400 points to your base score.
 
dentstd said:
A 1200 in those days is exceptional. Over the years, SAT scoring has changed in favor of higher scores by adding points here and there. Much like adding 400 points to your base score.
Click to expand...

Definitely. My mom got a 1100 or something on the SATs, and that was a good score back then. When I was taking the SATs a few years ago, I would have died if I got that a low of a score.

DrReo said:
EXACTLY! The longer we, essentially, discriminate from color to color, the long discrimination will be present. Let the best candidate win. The government and institutions love diversity. Who wants to be a diversity quota anyway?
Click to expand...

I agree completely. If you want to give an advantage to people, then look at SES or something. But to just assume that some people are more or less advantaged than others simply because of race is insulting. It's like saying - if you're black/hispanic/native, you aren't actually capable of getting better scores, so we'll just hold you to a lower standard. I think it's incredibly patronizing. No one should be judged by what social groups they belong to - they should be judged individually by their own merit. Race should never be a factor.
 
I'm not trying to deny that 1200 isn't a good score but let's be realistic. Legacy matters. Al Gore only had a score in the 1300s but he got into Harvard. People their age will back me up, those weren't exactly stellar scores for those schools. It's affirmative action for people who come from privileged backgrounds but no one seems to complain about it.

In high school the kids that had parents that were ivy alums had a much better shot than the rest of us and usually the only ivy they got into was the school their parents attended. Most couldn't stand out in a school where they didn't have a legacy advantage.

You're proving my point. No one on the thread cares about legacy advantages because, they're still harping about URMs. Our society would rather reward people for who their parents are than for someone's skin color. Neither can be controlled by the applicant and both are discrimatory but people love to pick on the easy target.
 
Last edited:
Lemons said:
I'm not trying to deny that 1200 isn't a good score but let's be realitic. Legacy matters. Al Gore only had a score in the 1300s but he got into Harvard. People their age will back me up, those weren't exactly stellar scores for those schools. It's affirmative action for people who come from privileged backgrounds but no one seems to complain about it.

In high school the kids that had parents that were ivy alums had a much better shot than the rest of us and usually the only ivy they got into was the school their parents attended. Most couldn't stand out in a school where they didn't have a legacy advantage.

You're proving my point. No one on thread cares about legacy advantages because, they're still harping about URMs. Our society would rather reward people for who their parents are than for someone's skin color. Neither can be controlled by the applicant and both are discrimatory but people love to pick on the easy target.
Click to expand...

You're not listening. SAT scoring has evolved over time. 1200+ is a very, very strong score. Percentile-wise, it's equivalent to the 1400's before they went to the 2400 point scale. A 1300+ is already incredibly, incredibly smart back in the day.
 
I'll take your word for it but I'm still standing by my point that I'll take affirmative action opponents more seriously when they start opposing other forms of discrimination. Pretty soon some colleges might be forced to give men an advantage over female applicants, would you support a ban on that as well? Don't get me wrong, I don't' think it's right but I also don't like how everyone seems fixated on URMs while ignoring other forms of discrimination.

But come on! You think it's a coincidence that President Bush got into Yale, the same school as his father without utilizing the legacy factor?

Same with Al Gore, it's no coincidence that his father went to Harvard. You not only need good grades and a GPA to get into Harvard, you need to be special. No offense but Al Gore was not special back then.
 
Last edited:
Slack3r said:
A system that serves to achieve such a vague concept as "diversity" through something so superficial as skin color/nationality is what's the REALLY screwed up thing about all of this URM nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree. We need to stop classifying people base on their skin color.
 
somethinpositiv said:
'Asian' is not a language. 'Black' isn't a language either. So what? What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that there are more black doctors than there are cambodian doctors but yet blacks are considered URM? What is ur point in asking me what is my point? Pointing finger at me when you know nothing about the point that I'm trying to make, asking me silly question such as what is my point? get the point?
 
somethinpositiv said:
What about a white girl from South Africa who moved to the states, is she African-American? Therefore a URM? There are people who go to my undergrad that got in this way.

I guess some people are so desperate for a handout since they can't make it by merit alone, that they will go on looking for loopholes in the system to exploit. I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere that says Cambodians are not really Asian, and are somehow a URM......
Click to expand...

Little boy, you make no sense. speaking to you is like speaking to a rock. the point is, and try to listen, my argument is i.e. that there are more black doctors in america than there are cambodian doctors but yet black people are considered URM. i don't need to use the URM card to get in med school and I never argued that I would do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
yay! I still want to be a dentist!
Replies
4
Views
2K
charlestweed
charlestweed
S
Maybe Pre-Dents Can Benefit from This Pre-Med Thread
Replies
4
Views
517
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Abu Shaggy
  • Question Question
I got a D+ in a non pre-requisite course, can I still get in without retaking it?
Replies
16
Views
2K
850csi
8
F
Foreign Undergraduate GPA 3.0, Can I still try?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Fishsoup
F
trissadavid
Why Dentistry Appeals to You Beyond “Helping People”
Replies
1
Views
460
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top