CNN AA Poll

[elin]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ryo- Your definition of merit is irrelevant to this discussion. As I said before, most college counselors would agree that your performance based on your resources. Do you really think the playing field is equal for everyone? As for the kids at Shaker Heights, which first of all wasn't a very scientific study, some of the kids, at least 10% were below poverty level. Not very many were the children of doctors and lawyers. So basically most of them were children whose parents worked solid blue, sometimes white collar jobs which combined for enough income to keep them middle class. Your parents can combine to have a sixty thousand + income a year and still be ocnstruction workers with little formal education, which means they might have no clue to what it takes to enter medicine, or an equivalent profession that requires academic excellence. Anyway, since I do not know any of the kids, I am hesitant to speculate, but reasons such as being excluded from gifted and other special programs, having parents that are juggling two or three jobs to stay middle class, identity crisis, teacher expectations, or a combination of all are what sociologists blame for the test scores of black kids at Shaker Heights. Another note, few respected sociologists or anthropolgists find Ogbu's study to be accurate or scientific.
The Shape of the River talks about and gives statistics for AA, legacy, and athlete admits to Ivy and Junior-Ivy schools. It is relevant to AA, as opposed to the Shaker Height's study.

PS- I think the argument is pretty useless at this point. You have some preconceived notion of how the admissions process should be conducted, which will never occur, AA, or no AA. Everything in this world is biased. Legacy, AA, geographic, artisitc, and athletic preferences are things that will continue to exist in the future? btw are you in college? med school? or high school? if you don't mind me asking..

 

[UCSBMed1]

Originally posted by Random Access
UCSBPre-Med1...not that I actually like living in the South, but I'm going to have to complain about this one... There are racist people everywhere, not just in South. People might be more openly racist in the South, but people are racist everywhere.

For example...if you are a black person going to a white church in New Jersey, they won't tell you to go away. But they will tell you that "you might feel more comfortable at the church down the street."

You are hardly open-minded.

LOL. Where do I begin with this post?

When the h*ll did I say there were only racists in the South? Trust me, I'm from Cali, and I know there are racists everywhere. What I said was that there is a greater percentage of the populace in the South that are racist. Open racism is just what it is--open racism. If "some" Southerners exhibit more open racism than Northerners, does the South not have a more racist atmosphere? Thats what I was saying.

Who the h*ll are you to say that I'm not open-minded? You don't even know me. I hardly know any black people to begin with, so how the h*ll am I not open-minded? I think if you were Black, you would know what I was talking about. Since you don't recognize the racism, how can you honestly tell me, an African-American who has been to the Deep South and experienced it first hand, that the South is not as racist as everywhere else. Give me a friggin' break. 🙄

 

[UCSBMed1]

And womansurg, thank you for the support. Its nice to know that there are White people who can go outside the circle and recognize the truth for what it is. 🙂

 

[Random Access]

Originally posted by UCSBPre-Med1
When the h*ll did I say there were only racists in the South? Trust me, I'm from Cali, and I know there are racists everywhere. What I said was that there is a greater percentage of the populace in the South that are racist. Open racism is just what it is--open racism. If "some" Southerners exhibit more open racism than Northerners, does the South not have a more racist atmosphere? Thats what I was saying.

You seem to think that someone will just go up to you and say "what are you doing here [insert racial slur here]?" That is not the case and not what I meant by "openly racist." Openly racist refers to "people" like Jesse Helms.

Most people in the south aren't racist. If you only talk to rednecks, maybe, but that's a small percentage of the population. You obviously haven't spent much time in southern cities. There are often more black people than white people!

Maybe this doesn't apply to the Deep South ('Bama and Mississippi) as I haven't spent much time in those places, but you seem to apply your biases to everywhere.

 

[UCSBMed1]

I'm only gonna say this one more time, because its obvious you're defending your home, and I totally understand that. But you are not BLACK. You can't see the racism for what it is.

I'll put my key points in bold so you won't put words in my mouth.

Most people in the South are kind, generous people. I never said that most people there were racist.

I have spent some time in Southern cities (Montgomery, AL; Dallas, TX; and a few more). For the vast majority of people, they were nice people, and it was very reminiscent of home. But I also encountered my fair share of stares with my WHITE girlfriend. Not to say that there aren't people staring back home, but it was 10 times worse in the South. Its not like I'm just spouting my mouth off and using Stereotypes, but for a California dude travelling to the South, it was sure as h*ll a culture shock to me. I know its a place I won't be returning to for a while. I'll stick to the big cities of the South, and to the North, thank you. 🙂

I know that there are a lot of Blacks in the South, I have a lot of extended family there. The Deep South is still a part of the South, and don't think that the rest of the South does not have similarly-minded people there as well. But, not all of the people there are racist, I never said that, I never implied that, and you should have not thought that.

 

[UCSBMed1]

Originally posted by gel1
UCSBPre-Med1,

I really hope you are applying to my med school. This city has a huge black and other minority population, and my school is right in the center of a huge black community. But when I look around my classes I see that there are only 4 or 5 black men out of the hundreds of students here--it's really embarrassing to me.

(yes, I know you probably are going to school in Cali 😉)

Thanks for the kind words. What med school do you go to? It would be a new experience for me to live in a minority community, because I grew up in a racially mixed community, where there were all different races there.

At my school (UC Santa Barbara) there is only a 2.7% Black population there. That is sad, and I wish I could do something to change that, but I can't. Its okay though, I still love my school, and all of my white classmates. 🙂

P.S. What race are you, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by Random Access
Most people in the south aren't racist.

I respectfully disagree, Random. Nearly all people everywhere are racist - no matter what their culture or skin tone. Being racist has to do with having preconceived ideas about an individual, based on your beliefs with regards to their physicality, or race.

I'm a leftist, hand wringing, daughter of hippies, child of the sixties liberal - probably the person you'd vote 'least likely to be a racist' if there ever was such an election. Yet I internally struggle with my ideas about black culture, work hard to avoid value judgements, and continually correct myself when I find myself assigning characteristics to an individual based on what I know about others with similar background or appearance. In other words, I'm racist, although I struggle mightily to overcome it.

Attitudes about race pervade every interaction, every encounter that members of society conduct. Whites are seldom on the receiving end (we deal mostly with other whites, no?), and so fail to appreciate the magnitude of it. Blacks deal with it every single day, and are acutely aware of it. In the deep south, there are an entire host of attitudes which are not common to other areas, and which are particularly hurtful and injurious to blacks.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Elin: What's the definition of merit Ryo-ohki?
Ryo Ohki: Merit is.....
Elin: Ryo- Your definition of merit is irrelevant to this discussion

-----

So the black kids at Shaker Heights are scoring lower because they're not really $70K households? They're $35K and $35K blue collar households?
First off, what do you base this on? Second, is the ratio of two income households different for blacks and whites at Shaker Heights? Of course, I'm simple minded and think money is money. Money can buy you a SAT prep course no matter if it is from a blue collar job or a white collar job. According to the premlimary reports, these parents are hardly blue collar. Just pure speculation?

Black kids at that school are scoring lower because their parents aren't college educated? Again, you're stabbing in thin air. What do you base that on? Do you think Shaker Heights has a bunch of white college educated one income households and a bunch of black non-college educated two income households?


http://www.ncpublicschools.org/Accountability/reporting/sat/2001/#race
Are those $20K-35K white kids from blue collar homes? Do you think those kids have parents that went to college? And do you actually think those kids go to schools that are as well staffed as Shaker Heights?
http://www.shakeronline.com/about/education/


If The Shape of the River was serious about studying AA, it would have left off merit URM admits off of the URM graduation rates. No matter, even the study itself shows failure rates are near three times higher for URM admits. I still dont' understand what the study is trying to say. The whole study basically says that URMs that go to Harvard are better off then URMs that do not go to Harvard.
I will start taking that study seriously as soon as they let people have access to the source data.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
If The Shape of the River was serious about studying AA, it would have left off merit URM admits off of the URM graduation rates. No matter, even the study itself shows failure rates are near three times higher for URM admits. I still dont' understand what the study is trying to say. The whole study basically says that URMs that go to Harvard are better off then URMs that do not go to Harvard.
I will start taking that study seriously as soon as they let people have access to the source data.

But how can you separate the two? How can you know who would have been accepted without AA? I doubt they're separated at the admissions office level, and even if you go by numbers, that's fallible. For example, if X got into Harvard with a 3.9 GPA and a 1460 SAT but crappy recs and a bad essay and then Y got into Harvard with a 1290 SAT and a 3.75 GPA but had stellar recs and a great essay..who's to say who deserved it more (both are URMs of course)? Which applicant was aided by AA?

Even if you have source data, it's not enough to know who was helped by AA and who would have been fine without it. We all know that admissions to colleges is extremely arbitrary...a guy at my high school with a 1600 SAT and a 4.0 got rejected from Harvard but accepted to MIT. It's not just a numbers game.

So I guess what you would want from that source data is to see whether or not low scores correlate with high attrition rates, huh? I can understand that, and would be interested to know if there was a correlation. But I'm not buying it. No college would keep admitting students who were underqualified if they kept dropping out all the time...it's not economically smart of them to do so. However, I do admit that I haven't read the study that you're talking about, so perhaps that is the case. But somehow I don't think so.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

How do we separate merit URMs from AA URMs?

Take a look at this chart.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/davis/ucd-med-97.html

The guy who scored a 3.4GPA/23MCAT is a AA URM.
The guy who scored a 3.95GPA/36MCAT is a merit URM.

Admittedly, the ones in the middle are hard to decide. Heck, authors could have used the middle ones if it helped the graduation rates (if they present a good cause statement). However they choose to lump in the 3.95 GPA/36 MCAT guy with the obviously AA URM people. In a book that is trying to explore AA, it strikes me as disingenuous.

Do you actually think graduation rates for URMs admitted because of race are anywhere near people who are admitted because of merit? Think of it as this way. Would you expect a white guys with 1000 SAT/3.0GPAs to graduate at a higher level on average then white guys with 1300 SAT/3.7GPAs? Why would you expect a black guy with the same stats to perform substantially better?

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
So the black kids at Shaker Heights are scoring lower because they're not really $70K households?
Black kids at that school are scoring lower because their parents aren't college educated?

So, what you're implying, Ryo-Ohki, is that because no societal, cultural or psychological factors can be implicated, that the black kids are just....inferior. That is the implication here.

Consider this: black kids aren't excelling at standards of achievement which are created and defined by white america. While little white Johnny undergoes years of psychotherapy to cope with the emotional damage wrought by the fact that his father never expressed his approval, little black Jane is told every single day of her life - by society - that she is not good enough, that no one expects her to amount to anything, that she is different, a thief, a shoplifter, an unwed mother, incompetent, not smart, not pretty, not wanted in this neighborhood. While the little asian kids are 'so smart, and hardworking, and trustworthy!', the little black kids are 'hooligans, gangbangers, no good...' It's on TV, in movies, at the mall, in school, on your own block.

Can you even begin to imagine what effect that has on your psyche? The anger you would feel? How willing would you be to immerse yourself in the literature, the customs, the values of that society? And how well do you suppose you - as an individual and as a people - would score on standardized testing in that case?

Do not underestimate the consequences of racism - be it obvious or occult.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/iq/mcwhorter.htm

I agree with the author. I really don't see how the levels of discrimination in this country is producing this low of test scores.
I think it is cultural like McWhorter suggests. Black anti-intellectualism. Acting like an oreo and such. AA does not help stop this anti-intellectual culture. I think it plays right into it.


URMs know exactly what is on MCAT. It does not matter what race the designers are. White people don't have a secret club where they discuss what's on that test. The MCAT isn't a white defined test. It is a test of chemistry/bio, physics and verbal knowledge. You might have a better chance of proving the writing section is white defined given its qualitative properties. Of course, we aren't seeing URMs with high physics, chemistry/biology and verbal scores with low writing scores. We are seeing low scores across the board. Please don't argue that the subjects of chemistry, physics and biology are "defined by whites" and somehow disadvantageous to blacks.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
How do we separate merit URMs from AA URMs?

Take a look at this chart.
http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/vault/medical/davis/ucd-med-97.html

The guy who scored a 3.4GPA/23MCAT is a AA URM.
The guy who scored a 3.95GPA/36MCAT is a merit URM.

I suppose...but I still think the latter case is arguable. But that's just being nitpicky.

Admittedly, the ones in the middle are hard to decide. Heck, authors could have used the middle ones if it helped the graduation rates (if they present a good cause statement). However they choose to lump in the 3.95 GPA/36 MCAT guy with the obviously AA URM people. In a book that is trying to explore AA, it strikes me as disingenuous.

I can see why they did it though. Of that chart, there are only a few you could single out as obviously benefitting from AA...the rest is highly subjective. So I don't think that excluding what you term as a merit URM would be extremely helpful and I wonder if it would change the statistics dramatically.

Do you actually think graduation rates for URMs admitted because of race are anywhere near people who are admitted because of merit? Think of it as this way. Would you expect a white guys with 1000 SAT/3.0GPAs to graduate at a higher level on average then white guys with 1300 SAT/3.7GPAs? Why would you expect a black guy with the same stats to perform substantially better?

If you asked me whether or not the former case performed lower than the latter....then I would probably agree. But even in the case of the white guys I don't necessarily agree with it being the case with graduation rates. I think that if, on the whole, that black students' attrition rates are higher (which they are), that it's not directly attributable to just AA. There are other intangible factors that could cause one to drop out.

As for the black intellectualism that you quote from McWhorter...that's directly because of what Womansurg was talking about....in addition to some other issues. But I don't support McW's argument at the end though. I don't think he's proven his point about black students not holding themselves to the same standards as whites. From my personal experience, I've never known anyone to say that they were going to stop trying because they know they can get in with subpar scores. I don't think the prescence AA on the college level is what is hindering black students from succeeding. I don't deny that black anti-intellectualism is probably a main culprit though....nor do I deny that AA is probably not the best way to go.

 

[kam730]

I feel compelled to respond, at the very least to justify my spending 20 minutes reading this never ending thread. First of all, I find it interesting that every time someone brings up all the other factors that can aid one's admission to med school (i.e. legacy, knowing someone at the med school, non-trad status, having an usual major, etc.) the subject is dodged. I realize that this discussion is supposed to be about AA, but these points being brought up are significant. If you are against someone being aided by his/her skin color, then you should be equally unnerved by someone getting in b/c he/she "had connections" or something. I would be willing to bet that if you summed all the people who have gotten in med school due to "connections", legacies, and other aforementioned factors, it would far outnumber minorities who got in b/c of race. So maybe your time would be better spent fighting these other "injustices." Also, I dont see how one's MCAT score or GPA can be a sole gauge of one's ability to be a good doctor. Like someone already mentioned, getting into med school is highly subjective and we have all known that from the beginning. There are essays and interviews which partially serve to weed out people who may have less than desirable social skills or are overly arrogant or do not have compelling reasons to enter the field of medicine. Ok, I could keep going, but I am tired of typing. One last thing though, I am a white girl born and raised in the south I personally get very tired of all the racism. Granted I have not spent an extended period of time in the north (only vacations) and have never been out west, but I only hope that racism is somewhat less rampamt in these areas, otherwise we have a larger problem in this country than I thought. Obviously my experiences are unique to me, but I am appalled almost on a daily basis by racist comments I hear on my very large public college campus, as well as when I go home to my very large metropolitan hometown. Ok, I'm done. Whew!!

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki

The guy who scored a 3.4GPA/23MCAT is a AA URM.
The guy who scored a 3.95GPA/36MCAT is a merit URM.

So does this mean that a white person that gets admitted to medical school with a 3.4GPA/23MCAT is a an affirmative action caucasian?

 

[pillowhead]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
So does this mean that a white person that gets admitted to medical school with a 3.4GPA/23MCAT is a an affirmative action caucasian?

It means he shouldn't have gotten in. Regardless of race.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by pillowhead
It means he shouldn't have gotten in. Regardless of race.

2 of my current doctors, both white, had similar stats and were admitted to medical school. I might be dead if they hadn't been admitted.

Just something to think about................

 

[groundhog]

Ever notice that the Pre-Dent and Pre-Osteo forums are not constantly reinfected by these refried hash AA debate threads?

 

[elin]

Ryo- I asked about your definition of merit because you seemed confused. You and pillowhead think merit depends on GPA and MCAT/SAT. That those who reach a certain cutoff, white or black, should not be admitted. However, I have yet to see a single college/ undergrad/grad/professional that uses this definition of merit. Whether you like it or not, colleges do not share your definition of merit. I referred you to the Shape of the River mainly because you seemed unaware of how legacy, and athletic capability helps students with lower averages get in. Yes some students may get in because of AA, but MANY more get in because of legacy. If you want to see the sources, like I have said many times, read the appendix, and anyway, I would think Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, would be more reliable than the random links you post on this board. About the Shaker Heights deal, I went to the website and noticed that they have a number of National Achievment Scholars, which happn to be black. I made my statements about Ogbu and the Shaker Heights study based on critiques of his book that were in the NY Times last month. Furthermore, you have never fully answered the main point I have made on this thread, which is AA is only a big deal because it involves race- similar practices legacy etc. are overlooked because they tend to benefit whites. Furthermore, you take a very simplified view of the problem. Even in top schools like, Shaker Heights, blacks are not encouraged to join honors programs etc. However, the whole issue of minorities in predominantly white schools is another story. I suggest "Why Are All The Black Kids Sit Together in the Cafateria" by Beverly Tatum for additional info. Shaker Heights, however is an isolated case. In general, education for minorities in this country is very poor. For some reason you are trying to look at test scores and GPA in a vacuum, which is poor science. Scientists tend to look at results + ENVIRONMENT. And it seems to me like you have little knowledge of what it feels like to be a minority, even in a top ranked school like Shaker Heights High and little knowledge of the minority experience with the school system in this country. Anyways, I feel like I keep repeating myself in my posts, Ryo-Ohki, and I hate to say this, but you seem like a very naive person with poor critical thinking skills, a bad combination for a future MD. If you want to continue this discussion, you can PM me.

 

[pillowhead]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
2 of my current doctors, both white, had similar stats and were admitted to medical school. I might be dead if they hadn't been admitted.

Just something to think about................

Well obviously I'm implying you should be dead 🙄

Since we can't actually predict the future about which doctors with low scores will save lives and which doctors with high scores won't, and since there are so many extremely qualified applicants for so few spots, it makes sense to use some sort of objective factors to discriminate between applicants who have already shown commitment to medicine, compassion for the sick, etc, etc. I believe MCAT scores and GPA do this quite well.

 

[pillowhead]

Originally posted by elin
Ryo- I asked about your definition of merit because you seemed confused. You and pillowhead think merit depends on GPA and MCAT/SAT.

Except that I don't think that. I think GPA and standardized test scores certainly contribute largely to one's merit. I think overcoming extreme hardship does as well. However I do not believe that being a certain race, gender, or ethnicity necessarily equals overcoming extreme hardship. I also believe that as state courts are deciding against using race as a factor in admissions, and as schools are now looking for other ways to bring in minorities, the admissions essay (at least at the undergraduate level) is becoming pity party. In other words, how can I, as an applicant, make my background look as poor and disadvantaged as possible? If you work at it, anyone can make themselves look disadvantaged on paper. I just don't like the direction that this going.

 

[Onres]

I think you are very right. I moved here when I was ten, didn't know a word of english. Now in my undergrad I usually get some of the highest grades if not the highest. I'm not bragging I'm just saying I had to work much harder to score the same A, a white person got, simply because let's face it, the minorities in general have very low incomes and those who don't still experience some kind of disadvantage leading up to college/graduate school, it's only fair. White (born American citizens) have no excuse to not succeed. I don't need my URM status to get into medical school, my grades, and mcat scores will show how hard i have busted my ass but honestly. We do deserve. All of you who oppose have no clue what most(not all) minorities have to go through to reach the same goals many very fortunate white american citizens get handed to them...

 

[fuzzywuz]

I think you are very right. I moved here when I was ten, didn't know a word of english. Now in my undergrad I usually get some of the highest grades if not the highest. I'm not bragging I'm just saying I had to work much harder to score the same A, a white person got, simply because let's face it, the minorities in general have very low incomes and those who don't still experience some kind of disadvantage leading up to college/graduate school, it's only fair. White (born American citizens) have no excuse to not succeed. I don't need my URM status to get into medical school, my grades, and mcat scores will show how hard i have busted my ass but honestly. We do deserve. All of you who oppose have no clue what most(not all) minorities have to go through to reach the same goals many very fortunate white american citizens get handed to them...

Whoa, this is an old thread! Anyway, I kinda disagree with what you said. Your argument seems to be focused on race as the ultimate deciding factor of being disadvantage. Your last statement pretty much implies that...

Although it is TRUE in some regards, it is by no means the only and final deciding factor... AA needs to be overhauled. I'm not suggesting that it should be taken out of consideration. But as most people would agree, factors that dictate a person's disadvantage status needs to be reevaluated..

 

[Narmerguy]

I think you are very right. I moved here when I was ten, didn't know a word of english. Now in my undergrad I usually get some of the highest grades if not the highest. I'm not bragging I'm just saying I had to work much harder to score the same A, a white person got, simply because let's face it, the minorities in general have very low incomes and those who don't still experience some kind of disadvantage leading up to college/graduate school, it's only fair. White (born American citizens) have no excuse to not succeed. I don't need my URM status to get into medical school, my grades, and mcat scores will show how hard i have busted my ass but honestly. We do deserve. All of you who oppose have no clue what most(not all) minorities have to go through to reach the same goals many very fortunate white american citizens get handed to them...

Troll.

 

[Handy388]

I think you are very right. I moved here when I was ten, didn't know a word of english. Now in my undergrad I usually get some of the highest grades if not the highest. I'm not bragging I'm just saying I had to work much harder to score the same A, a white person got, simply because let's face it, the minorities in general have very low incomes and those who don't still experience some kind of disadvantage leading up to college/graduate school, it's only fair. White (born American citizens) have no excuse to not succeed. I don't need my URM status to get into medical school, my grades, and mcat scores will show how hard i have busted my ass but honestly. We do deserve. All of you who oppose have no clue what most(not all) minorities have to go through to reach the same goals many very fortunate white american citizens get handed to them...

I am also an immigrant who had to study English and be competitive academically within four years of arrival to the states.

However, I am not an URM.

 

[calnation]

I think it's unfair that a rich URM who had all the opportunities in the world can get a free boost in the admissions process. Now granted, most URMs are not like that, but I know plenty of white and asian people who have had it worse than other URMs. I think economic disadvantages should be taken into consideration over racial background.

At the same time, I'm still left to wonder why certain ethnic groups are so vastly under-represented. I've seen so many immigrants come to the United States without a dime to their name and succeed. It's a complicated issue to say the least.

 

[MDBBLk]

impressive your thoughts perfectly paralleled mine, couldnt hAve said any better

i m a first generation immigrant and I have seen the struggles at both sides but am astonished to find out that very many have a better life than most immgrants have growing up
having your own bedroom to me was AAAAAAAAA luxury!

then at college I was not quailified for manyyyyyyyy scholarships becuse i m not a minority but i thought i was

the key is socioeconomic status! and life adversity along with other factors
but i guess this is too complex thus they simplify it at best=unfair

 

[MDBBLk]

one more thing please do not state certain races as it is no one's fault its just the system, however I need not remind you there are many poor white americans , Although they may not realistically face as much discrimination as a lighter complexion person would but this behavior is seen every socitey and being a south asian female I know it is the norm

So the key is Sociioeconomic factors

one thing i learned being a psychology major if you are quick to judge someone and we all are guilty of life's little sinfull pleasure, you are equally ignorent as others

 

[fuzzywuz]

I think it's unfair that a rich URM who had all the opportunities in the world can get a free boost in the admissions process. Now granted, most URMs are not like that, but I know plenty of white and asian people who have had it worse than other URMs. I think economic disadvantages should be taken into consideration over racial background.

At the same time, I'm still left to wonder why certain ethnic groups are so vastly under-represented. I've seen so many immigrants come to the United States without a dime to their name and succeed. It's a complicated issue to say the least.

Well answer that question... think about social issues and cultural issues. Certain groups tend to have more babies than others. That definitely contributes to the swelling number of minorities within that group. Given that fact that socioeconomics and other factors usually do not favor them, the added pressure of having more people in the family will only continue to limit and create disadvantages for those people. It's a perpetual cycle...

 

[Onres]

Whoa, this is an old thread! Anyway, I kinda disagree with what you said. Your argument seems to be focused on race as the ultimate deciding factor of being disadvantage. Your last statement pretty much implies that...

Although it is TRUE in some regards, it is by no means the only and final deciding factor... AA needs to be overhauled. I'm not suggesting that it should be taken out of consideration. But as most people would agree, factors that dictate a person's disadvantage status needs to be reevaluated..

I was responding to a specific post i guess i should have quoted it and i didn't... anyway in some regards it is fair, I'm not making at all about race but race is a factor, In fact i never really looked at my self as being disadvantaged because that would just be an excuse to no do anything with my life, all I'm saying is that no one who doesn't experience some kind of disadvantage, whether it's racial or socioeconomic should just flat out say that the fact URMs get a slight advantage is unfair,

 

[Onres]

I am also an immigrant who had to study English and be competitive academically within four years of arrival to the states.

However, I am not an URM.

I could be wrong about how it works, if I am then correct me, you don't decide to be labeled as URM, whatever ethnicity/race you put down on your application decides that. I personally don't think i need to be labeled as that to get into med school, because im work hard and that will most likely pay off, again what i meant was that people who are born here and don't experience socioeconomic/racial or any other disadvantage shouldn't say it's unfair because they would probably have a different view on it if it was them experiencing those disadvantages, at the same time i don't think a URM should get into medical school just because of that because of someone who is more qualified