Dispelling a few myths about AA, URMs, and medical admissions

[MoosePilot]

Despite the very minimal difference AA makes, it is such a heated issue. But AA is no longer even used.

Oh? Look at my MDapplicant's profile. I'm sad to say that I'll always wonder to what extent my success was due to AA. I think my success at my first choice was clean, but I think checking that damn box, although truthful, tainted the whole thing for me.

I highly doubt I would have gotten the Baylor interview purely on the basis of my app.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MoosePilot]

It seems you read my post incorrectly. When I made the assertion, "we all know this is not necessarily true" I meant, "We all know it is not necessarily true that the person with the 34 is more likely to succeed in medical school than the person with the 31." Usually replies address assertions made in a previous post. I'd appreciate it if you'd read more clearly before you accuse me of drinking.

No, I might not have understood what you meant, but your poor writing and my lack of telepathy doesn't mean that I read your post incorrectly.

Go back and read the exchange.

Yes. I think the MCAT measures something and I think someone who earns a 31 is slightly less likely to succeed than someone who earns a 34. Med school admissions is based on tiny, incredibly tough distinctions like that, because most that apply are qualified to go.

We all know that this is not necessarily true. This is why schools use the threshold method. At a certain point, applicants who can achieve a certain MCAT score are intellectually apt to succeed. After a certain cut off, other factors (work ethic, drive, learning style, etc) better predict the success of the student. Your argument is derailed by the bold print. Most people who apply ARE qualified to go. Since medical schools are presented with this glut of qualified applicants, they have to choose the ones who are most needed/stand to best serve the US population. Since URMs are in such short supply, they are more needed.

So you're saying "We all know that this is not necessarily true." (of someone who earns a lower score being *slightly* less likely to succeed than someone who earns a higher score).

The numbers say that MCAT scores do correlate with med school GPA and USMLE scores, both of which are measures of med school success. http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/julia001.pdf

AA is about ensuring that the medical school population reflects the general population. If some groups are underrepresented, it ensures these groups get into medical school. We have already discussed the purposes of AA, if you'd like to refresh your memory, feel free to re-read this thread.

Why is it a racist assertion that minority patients take better care of, are received better by, are more willing to work with, and have a greater vested interest in minority patients? I didn't just make that up, it's true. Check out the AAMC web page for examples. Maybe you don't understand why this would be the case, but it is the case. I'm sorry you still don't understand it, but this is a reality.

I don't need to refresh my memory, thank you. Just because I think all of the purposes, this one included, aren't worth racist discrimination doesn't mean I haven't heard you squawk them for pages and pages of text.

If you don't understand why it's a racist statement, then what happens if I invert it? (NOTE: I don't believe the following, it's being used as an example that might make this clearer.) White [physicians] take better care of and are respected more by non-minority patients.

If this is true, should minority docs receive restricted licenses so they don't treat anyone but poor minority patients, since that's really their purpose?

Prove this to me and then we'll talk. Prove to me that some qualified applicant would be guaranteed a place in medical school if AA did not exist. Are you saying that each qualified applicant has a place in medical school? It is easy to see that this is not true. What if URMS are *gasp* qualified applicants?

Prove it? It's obvious! If AA accomplishes anything, it does it be displacing an equivalent number of non-URMs to make room for URMs. If AA does not do this, then it does nothing and we can abolish it without impacting admissions.

Most URMs *are* probably qualified applicants, because most applicants probably are qualified. If they were *competitive* applicants, though, they wouldn't need a handout, which is the problem.

The purpose of AA is to admit minorities who have the interest and the aptitude to work with the minority patients (those who have traditionally been underserved). You, being a fraction Native American, are applying to medical school as an underrepresented minority, but you don't seem to realize how imperative it is to increase certain population's access to healthcare. Since you've chosen to highlight your URM background, adcoms probably (mistakenly) believe you are more likely to work with those people with whom you identify. They were wrong; in your case, the system of AA has given an advantage to someone who is not committed to a certain underserved population.

I've chosen to "highlight" my URM background? By accurately checking a box that represents a significant (greater than 1/4, perhaps as much as 1/2) portion of my descent? I checked both the white (or caucasian) box and the Native American box. I didn't even check the box in the Texas app, because the standards included claiming a tribe, which I can not acccurately do. Don't act like I made that a centerpiece of my app, anymore than I did my social security number... guess what, I "highlighted" that, too

I'm not sure you even believe this. I've seen you argue for the death penalty in other threads. Would you say murder is wrong? In all cases? If not, why is giving racial preference wrong in all cases?

I would say murder is wrong. I would not say that killing is wrong. There can be distinctions in life, but I don't see any distinctions between good racial discrimination and bad.

I'm done discussing this topic. I don't think we've made any progress and I'm rapidly finding myself becoming polarized on the topic and losing respect for people. I hope we as a society seek social justice in all aspects of racism, but I don't think we're making any progress towards that here.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

whoa... NO need for personal attacks

 

[1Path]

I'd rather someone expected more out of me than less. It's healthier.

I obviously don't have the SDN URM data to back me up, but I seriously doubt the majority of URM's give a rat's a$$ about the "lowered standrads of excellence "others" have of "us".

What's healthy is a positive self image in the face of glaring ignorance.

 

[Bernito]

Oh? Look at my MDapplicant's profile. I'm sad to say that I'll always wonder to what extent my success was due to AA. I think my success at my first choice was clean, but I think checking that damn box, although truthful, tainted the whole thing for me.

I highly doubt I would have gotten the Baylor interview purely on the basis of my app.

If you would continue to read the entire post and not just the parts that are convenient for you then you would see I made a distinction between AA and what is currently in use. Here it is again (with the portion in bold so you dont miss it this time). I am in no way claiming that it isn't a factor.

Despite the very minimal difference AA makes, it is such a heated issue. But AA is no longer even used. In fact since AA was ruled illegal (~ '95) minority numbers in medicine have plummeted. Despite continued efforts (aka URM recruitment which is not AA, i.e. no quotas) the numbers continue to decrease, despite the fact that minority populations are growing faster than other populations.

Minorities will comprise a little less than 50% of the US popln by 2050. I think this is a healthcare crisis and deserves more from us than bickering about who is more or less disadvantaged and who deserves what.

Its clear that minorities are receiving measurably lower quality healthcare and dying younger or living relatively more 'sickly' lives. Hence they are the ones who are disadvantaged. ADCOMs/SOMs see this, why do you think they continue to fight in court for the ability to recruit minorities? But no, as always, green pre-meds have all the answers.

 

[MoosePilot]

If you would continue to read the entire post and not just the parts that are convenient for you then you would see I made a distinction between AA and what is currently in use. Here it is again (with the portion in bold so you dont miss it this time). I am in no way claiming that it isn't a factor.

You made an untrue distinction. It's not just recruitment, it's letting people in with lower numbers, for which I used examples.

Do you really think URMs aren't admitted with lower stats? I didn't check anything on MCAT, thus wasn't recruited for my minority status. If recruitment was all that goes on now, then AMCAS URM claims basically don't matter. Which seems obviously untrue to me, but maybe you've had a different experience.

 

[CaveatLector]

Don't point out the fact that admissions committees consider race/ethnicity and expect that URMS and whites are on a level playing field.

It doesn't matter that both the poor white person and the poor black person struggled because of their lower socioeconomic status. The reality of today is that certain ethnic groups are subject to lower standards of healthcare than others. AA works to correct this disparity--regardless of who suffered the most, or which applicants had access to which resources.

And somehow you think that the poor white population has great access to healthcare due to skin color or that the skin color of a doctor will make all the difference in the world.

I've been there, I know better. My pediatrician was a black woman when I was growing up. Even as a kid I didn't think, "oh no I've got a black doctor." It was just a fact of life. I went to the doctor whom my mother took me to see and that's it. And my mother, unfortunately, WAS a bit racist. Why she took me to see a black doctor I don't know, there were certainly other options where we lived. Maybe because, at the end of the day, what my mother wanted was quality health care for her child regardless of who provided that.

With that said, make no mistake, I didn't see the doctor for regular check-ups. I had a physical when required for entry to school and such. I had asthma so I saw the doc more often than I would have otherwise but we had no insurance and seeing the doctor when you weren't REALLY sick wasn't much of an option.

Now I understand this is anecdotal evidence and not necessarily indicative of the population as a whole. But the point is, not only did I have poor access to medical care, my physician was not of the same race as myself and that wasn't a problem. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that the reason the black population has reduced access to medical care or opportunity to seek medical care is because there are a bunch of white physicians running around. Fact is the majority of the black population in this country resides in cities. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a city that doesn't have ready access to primary care no matter what your race. The fact that a larger percentage of black women die from breast cancer, for example, is due to a lack of preventative care. This isn't because there is no access to this care it is because preventative care is not a high priority among certain populations of blacks, or whites for that matter. Like I said, when I was growing up I saw the doc on a NEED-to-see basis. IN other words I generally saw her when something was wrong. I didn't go for yearly check-ups. When you are poor preventative care is less likely to be of concern for you for at least two reasons. First, you live day to day. If something isn't bothering you today you don't get it checked out. You aren't that concerned about a year or 5 years from now because you don't look that far ahead. It's not that easy to look far ahead when your primary concern is living today; where you are going to get the money to pay today's bills, etc. Second, you are less educated on the need for primary and preventative care and it just plain isn't a concern for you. It's not like it is on your list of things to do but is at the bottom because you can't find the time/money/caregiver to do it. It isn't even on your list. Just like education. The majority of poor people don't make education a priority either.

To sum it up, you need to compare apples to apples. When you are looking at quality or quantity of care for blacks you cannot compare the entire black population to the entire white population. You need to compare at income levels. In other words, compare the black population at x income level to the white population at the same level of income. I guarantee you won't see the same disparity of care in the middle-class blacks as you do for the overall population. In other words, the need for care has to be disseminated; educated, among certain CLASSES of people, NOT races of people.

 

[CaveatLector]

Indeed!! AA might have adverse effects on the poor white kid that grew up on the wrong side of the tracks… But, if the person is truly motivated to go into medicine there are other avenues DO and Carib… It can be deciphered quite clearly that most black people that get AA would get into A medical school… (DO or MD or possibly the Caribbean) thus, AA is not exactly keeping poor white people out… It is just giving black people more opportunities at “better” institutions in the hope of producing a more diverse MEDICAL FORCE …

Also, don’t forget that we have a process that is not solely based on stats thus, a poor white kid with the full package a maybe 1 weakness (GPA/ MCAT) will probably gain admission to A medical school…

So if DO and Carib options are good enough for the poor white kid why is it they aren't good enough for the poor black kid? Like someone said earlier, the ultimate goal is, supposedly, to churn out more black docs. You achieve the same end result that way. And you know as well as I do that certain Carib schools will take ANYONE they deem qualified. It's all about the money for them. When you can apply an matriculate in the space of 3 months you KNOW it's all about the money.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

So if DO and Carib options are good enough for the poor white kid why is it they aren't good enough for the poor black kid? Like someone said earlier, the ultimate goal is, supposedly, to churn out more black docs. You achieve the same end result that way. And you know as well as I do that certain Carib schools will take ANYONE they deem qualified. It's all about the money for them. When you can apply an matriculate in the space of 3 months you KNOW it's all about the money.

That was not the intention of my post. Don't misconstrue my statement If I remember right, the intention of my post was to emphasize that there are many options if one really wants to be a doctor…

 

[Bernito]

You made an untrue distinction. It's not just recruitment, it's letting people in with lower numbers, for which I used examples.

AA does not equal URM recruitment... That was my distinction, what is not true about that?

Do you really think URMs aren't admitted with lower stats? I didn't check anything on MCAT, thus wasn't recruited for my minority status. If recruitment was all that goes on now, then AMCAS URM claims basically don't matter. Which seems obviously untrue to me, but maybe you've had a different experience.

I am not a URM, so I haven't had any of these experiences personally. I based my statements on what I have read. What I have taken from that is that checking URM is akin to an EC. ADCOMs want URMs for reasons that have already been discussed, and the URM status brings the applicant to the attention of the committee. Much like your MCAT score probably attracted a few more eyes to your application. But in of itself, URM, like a good MCAT, is not sufficient to get you a interview. In a recent survey of many medical schools, the schools cited low MCAT scores most often of 37 possible barriers against allowing more URMs into their school (Agrawal et al). Yes some URMs get in with lower scores than some of their classmates, but simply checking URM is not a golden admission ticket (which it was close to under AA).

I think this is a rehash of some of the things already discussed in this thread, but judging from your statements it seemed to me you where asking a similar question.

 

[Bernito]

And somehow you think that the poor white population has great access to healthcare due to skin color or that the skin color of a doctor will make all the difference in the world.

Rural care is a priority in healthcare today and there are recruiting efforts to this end. Just because you do not feel a beckoning to help poor whites does not mean that many minorities do not head the call to help other minorities. Its called solidarity.

Now I understand this is anecdotal evidence and not necessarily indicative of the population as a whole.

Its not indicative of the whole population, but yet you use it to draw conclusions anyways?

The fact that a larger percentage of black women die from breast cancer, for example, is due to a lack of preventative care. This isn't because there is no access to this care it is because preventative care is not a high priority among certain populations of blacks, or whites for that matter.

This statement, like the statement ‘blacks need to stop playing basketball and study’, is what is referred to as a stereotype. Similarly, many doctors stereotype minority patients. For example, they may say ‘this black person will not take this medication anyway, so why bother.’ Just one example of how healthcare can fail a minority patient.

To sum it up, you need to compare apples to apples. When you are looking at quality or quantity of care for blacks you cannot compare the entire black population to the entire white population. You need to compare at income levels. In other words, compare the black population at x income level to the white population at the same level of income. I guarantee you won't see the same disparity of care in the middle-class blacks as you do for the overall population. In other words, the need for care has to be disseminated; educated, among certain CLASSES of people, NOT races of people.

There are in fact a large number of studies which control for SE status, as well as many other factors. The results were time and again worse for the minority patient (for these and above comments, see IOM: Unequal Treatment).

You are, as you say, working with “anecdotal” evidence. If you’re going to draw conclusions, back it up with actual research and documentation, not your gut feeling.

 

[CaveatLector]

Rural care is a priority in healthcare today and there are recruiting efforts to this end. Just because you do not feel a beckoning to help poor whites does not mean that many minorities do not head the call to help other minorities. Its called solidarity..

What does rural care have to do with the discussion? Somehow you think the poor whites live in rural (farming) areas?????

And what's this about minorities heeding the call to help other minorities? This is something YOU know as a FACT? Maybe you ought to take a little of your own advice...

You are, as you say, working with “anecdotal” evidence. If you’re going to draw conclusions, back it up with actual research and documentation, not your gut feeling.

Its not indicative of the whole population, but yet you use it to draw conclusions anyways?.

My entire argument was not based on anecdotal evidence. I merely pointed out a weakness in THAT part. Furthermore, as all of us who have had research methods classes and stats classes know, quoting a study isn't always accurate. Before you quote me a study tell me who funded it...
The point is that just because you have a "study" to hang your hat on does not necessarily mean you are right either.

This statement, like the statement ‘blacks need to stop playing basketball and study’, is what is referred to as a stereotype. Similarly, many doctors stereotype minority patients. For example, they may say ‘this black person will not take this medication anyway, so why bother.’ Just one example of how healthcare can fail a minority patient..

The fact that certain groups of blacks (ie: low income)fail to get preventative care is a stereotype? No, it's ONE OF THE REASONS black women have a worse survival statistic when it comes to breast cancer! It's a fact! When you don't find the cancer until it's a palpable tumor your survival rate DROPS!

 

[1Path]

The fact that a larger percentage of black women die from breast cancer, for example, is due to a lack of preventative care. This isn't because there is no access to this care it is because preventative care is not a high priority among certain populations of blacks, or whites for that matter. .

This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on SDN. So as an NIH/NCI trained breast cancer researcher and person with a family history of breast cancer, allow me to educate you.

For poor, uneducated black women, the lack of ACCESS to preventative care (ie no health insurance) is the MAIN reason this particular group of black women die at a greater rate than white women. However, when looking at educated black women with access and use of preventative care, they too die at a higher rate than white women, therefore the reason has nothing at all to do with their use of available resources. It does have to do with the fact that:

1) Black women are often Dx'ed with more highly aggressive and larger tumors than white women. This obviously doesn't bode well for survival.

2) Some studies have shown that black women are NOT offered the same aggressive treatment options as white women and I'm talking about educated, middle class women here WITH health insurance. I believe the appropriate word for this is racism.

3) Mammogram reccomendations are based on research done primarly on white women. Leading black/minority Physicans/Scientists involved in breast cancer research and the treatment of breast cancer patients think the age for baseline mammograms should be pushed back to 30 instead of 40 for black/minority women. The average white doctor is probably inaware of this (at least mine was). And this one fact supports the need for more URM physicians.

 

[CaveatLector]

This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read on SDN. So as an NIH/NCI trained breast cancer researcher and person with a family history of breast cancer, allow me to educate you.

.

And you are obviously one of the most ignorant READERS on SDN given the fact that you took my statement, which was specifically qualified to CERTAIN POPULATIONS of black AND white people and then proceeded to expound on it as if I meant/wrote the ENTIRE population of black women.

For someone with such wonderful training and such a self-righteous attitude I'm surprised your attention to detail was so poor. But then maybe you were busy on your next cancer breakthrough or even a cure? Next you're going to tell me that your mama's sister's brother-in-law has a stepbrother whose friend's dad is dating a girl who has a son that goes to daycare with a kid whose mother knows a black girl who has a black friend who is also a woman who not only went to the doctor regularly but was a hypochondriac and did self-breast-exams everyday and so, see, that proves that preventive care is alive and well in all black communities.

 

[CaveatLector]

THURSDAY, Dec. 8 (HealthDay News) -- A cancer diagnosis can present the average person with the battle of his or her life. But new research suggests too many may be giving up on that fight far too early.

One example: In a recent effort to recruit high-risk black and Hispanic New Yorkers to a breast cancer prevention drug trial, researchers at Columbia University asked each potential candidate whether or not she agreed with the statement, "If someone is meant to get cancer, they will."

Nearly one out of three (30 percent) of the women who declined to join in the trial said they agreed with that statement -- that it was pointless to try and ward off breast cancer, even when they knew their odds for the disease were high due to a family history.

Even among women who agreed to join the trial (which will compare the effectiveness of tamoxifen vs. raloxifene in preventing breast malignancy), 11 percent said they believed getting cancer was simply a matter of fate.

Fatalism can undermine the care of patients newly diagnosed with cancer, as well, experts say.

"When you see people they'll say, 'My sister died, and she got all this treatment, why should I go through all that?' Even though the patient may have an earlier stage of cancer, and we've advanced in science [since then]," said Dr. Dawn Hershman, co-director of the Breast Program at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of Columbia's Medical Center in New York City.

 

[1Path]

THURSDAY, Dec. 8 (HealthDay News) -- A cancer diagnosis can present the average person with the battle of his or her life. But new research suggests too many may be giving up on that fight far too early.

One example: In a recent effort to recruit high-risk black and Hispanic New Yorkers to a breast cancer prevention drug trial, researchers at Columbia University asked each potential candidate whether or not she agreed with the statement, "If someone is meant to get cancer, they will."

Nearly one out of three (30 percent) of the women who declined to join in the trial said they agreed with that statement -- that it was pointless to try and ward off breast cancer, even when they knew their odds for the disease were high due to a family history.

Even among women who agreed to join the trial (which will compare the effectiveness of tamoxifen vs. raloxifene in preventing breast malignancy), 11 percent said they believed getting cancer was simply a matter of fate.

Fatalism can undermine the care of patients newly diagnosed with cancer, as well, experts say.

"When you see people they'll say, 'My sister died, and she got all this treatment, why should I go through all that?' Even though the patient may have an earlier stage of cancer, and we've advanced in science [since then]," said Dr. Dawn Hershman, co-director of the Breast Program at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of Columbia's Medical Center in New York City.

First off grow up. I called your statement ignorant NOT you. And since you've decided to resort to childish name calling, why don't we take this to PM. That way I can respond appropriately without involving all people in this thread who know how to debate maturely.

Movin, on thank you for posting that article as you just SUPPORTED why we need more URM doctors.

CULTURAL SIMILARITES can play a HUGE ROLE in the quality of care provided to patients. I understand from a cultrual perspective what was said in that article by the women in that study because I can relate. People who either are black/hispanic or grew up in these communities know all too well what the "community sentiment" is toward disease, especially cancer which is why we need more doctors from similar backgrounds. And I was just thinking, I wonder why I've NEVER seen or heard of a similar study coming out of any of the black medical schools. Could it be that there's some difference in the way black schools provide care to these women? Hell yeah!

FYI, one very large part of providing good care, particularily with this disease is CARING about your patients beyond the normal doctor patient relationship. If a patient comes in talking fatalistically you can either say " Oh, OK but your gonna die" and collect your fee for the appointment or you take your patient by the hand and explain to them the consequences of their actions.

I just have to ask, do YOU Understand why you posted that article and what was supposed to be your point?

 

[gostudy]

First off grow up. I called your statement ignorant NOT you. And since you've decided to resort to childish name calling, why don't we take this to PM. That way I can respond appropriately without involving all people in this thread who know how to debate maturely.

Movin, on thank you for posting that article as you just SUPPORTED why we need more URM doctors.

CULTURAL SIMILARITES can play a HUGE ROLE in the quality of care provided to patients. I understand from a cultrual perspective what was said in that article by the women in that study because I can relate. People who either are black/hispanic or grew up in these communities know all too well what the "community sentiment" is toward disease, especially cancer.

FYI, one very large part of providing good care, particularily with this disease is CARING about your patients beyond the normal doctor patient relationship. If a patient comes in talking fatalistically you can either say " Oh, OK but your gonna die" and collect your fee for the appointment or you take your patient by the hand and explain to them the consequences of their actions.

I just have to ask, do YOU Understand why you posted that article and what was supposed to be your point?

Right on. When will people stop being in denial?

 

[1Path]

THURSDAY, Dec. 8 (HealthDay News) -- A cancer diagnosis can present the average person with the battle of his or her life. But new research suggests too many may be giving up on that fight far too early..

Since you like to cite studies:

Perceptions and knowledge of breast cancer among African-American women residing in public housing.

McDonald PA, Thorne DD, Pearson JC, Adams-Campbell LL.

Howard University Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia 20060, USA. [email protected]

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study, theoretically based on the Health Belief Model, was to assess breast cancer perceptions, knowledge, and screening behavior of low-income, African-American women residing in public housing.

Most women did not perceive themselves or a particular racial or economic group to be more susceptible to breast cancer. Moreover, the women in the sample did not perceive breast cancer as a fatal disease. Overall, women in the sample endorsed the benefits of mammography and denied the relevance of commonly cited barriers to breast cancer screening.

 

[1Path]

Right on. When will people stop being in denial?

I have no idea. I actually jumped on the cancer research bandwagon after my Dad was dignosed and died from the disease. But I can't tell you how piss poor his care was. More often than not, his care givers except the Hospice folks, just didn't give a ****. And talking about everything from pallative care to treatment options.

 

[MoosePilot]

AA does not equal URM recruitment... That was my distinction, what is not true about that?


I am not a URM, so I haven't had any of these experiences personally. I based my statements on what I have read. What I have taken from that is that checking URM is akin to an EC. ADCOMs want URMs for reasons that have already been discussed, and the URM status brings the applicant to the attention of the committee. Much like your MCAT score probably attracted a few more eyes to your application. But in of itself, URM, like a good MCAT, is not sufficient to get you a interview. In a recent survey of many medical schools, the schools cited low MCAT scores most often of 37 possible barriers against allowing more URMs into their school (Agrawal et al). Yes some URMs get in with lower scores than some of their classmates, but simply checking URM is not a golden admission ticket (which it was close to under AA).

I think this is a rehash of some of the things already discussed in this thread, but judging from your statements it seemed to me you where asking a similar question.

AA is still going on. They can not create specific quotas, but they can admit people who would not be considered for admission as a non-URM and do regularly, as seen from the numbers. Recruitment also exists, but is not the only tool currently being used to increase URM numbers. Are you saying otherwise?

 

[Bernito]

What does rural care have to do with the discussion? Somehow you think the poor whites live in rural (farming) areas?????

I may be mistaken, but I thought the majority of impoverished whites did live in rural areas.

And what's this about minorities heeding the call to help other minorities? This is something YOU know as a FACT? Maybe you ought to take a little of your own advice...

This was from a reference used in an earlier post. "minority and women physicians are much more likely to serve minority, poor, and Medicaid populations." (Cantor et al).
I did go beyond their research because they do not look into the reasons for this trend. I am inclined to believe solidarity, but it may just be a geographical tendency to move back into minority communities. The end result is that same however.

Furthermore, as all of us who have had research methods classes and stats classes know, quoting a study isn't always accurate. Before you quote me a study tell me who funded it...
The point is that just because you have a "study" to hang your hat on does not necessarily mean you are right either.

Are we really going to argue the validity of peer-reviewed journals? You're going into the wrong profession if basing your judgments on published research is going to be a problem. I am not asking you to take my statements without question. Thats why I put the reference in. If you have issue, click on it and find the problems. Or find research to the contrary. I'll be open to it and read it. But between your opinions (which have proven to be common misconceptions) and published research, Ill trust the latter.

 

[CaveatLector]

Since you like to cite studies:



Most women did not perceive themselves or a particular racial or economic group to be more susceptible to breast cancer. Moreover, the women in the sample did not perceive breast cancer as a fatal disease. Overall, women in the sample endorsed the benefits of mammography and denied the relevance of commonly cited barriers to breast cancer screening.

That's exactly my point. For every study you post I can post 2 to refute it. And then you would post 2 to refute mine. As I stated earlier, those of you who post links and think it proves your point are often mistaken. Anyone who has had a research methods class and a stats class knows that a study is only as good as the money that backs it. Did the money come from a political organization or a private company with certain goals in mind? Was it commissioned by a government with a certain political slant? etc., etc.

 

[Bernito]

AA is still going on. They can not create specific quotas, but they can admit people who would not be considered for admission as a non-URM and do regularly, as seen from the numbers. Recruitment also exists, but is not the only tool currently being used to increase URM numbers. Are you saying otherwise?

You may need to enlighten me then. What I am saying is that URM is just one of the factors that ADCOMs look at now. If an applicant has a low GPA, sometimes a high MCAT and good ECs and LORs can make up for it. Granted URM has a decent amount of weight on it, but it does not guarantee acceptance as it more nearly did under AA.

 

[1Path]

That's exactly my point. For every study you post I can post 2 to refute it. And then you would post 2 to refute mine. As I stated earlier, those of you who post links and think it proves your point are often mistaken. Anyone who has had a research methods class and a stats class knows that a study is only as good as the money that backs it. Did the money come from a political organization or a private company with certain goals in mind? Was it commissioned by a government with a certain political slant? etc., etc.

Let me cut to the chase for you, urm's STILL suffer disproportionaly from ALL diseases and:

WE DESPERATELY NEED MORE URM PHYSICIANS. Case closed!

 

[MoosePilot]

You may need to enlighten me then. What I am saying is that URM is just one of the factors that ADCOMs look at now. If an applicant has a low GPA, sometimes a high MCAT and good ECs and LORs can make up for it. Granted URM has a decent amount of weight on it, but it does not guarantee acceptance as it more nearly did under AA.

Oh, I'd agree, but I doubt it ever did. If a URM homeless person wandered in off the streets, there has never been any way they'd get in.

I'd say it's just one major factor that helps someone get in. I don't know where to classify it, but I think it's pretty important. I bet every adcom has a number in mind that they know dropping below will make their school look bad. So they'll accept the best so many URM applicants until they're at least at or above that number and then accept one URM from the waitlist for every one that doesn't accept the invitation to attend.

 

[Thundrstorm]

Oh, I'd agree, but I doubt it ever did. If a URM homeless person wandered in off the streets, there has never been any way they'd get in.

I'd say it's just one major factor that helps someone get in. I don't know where to classify it, but I think it's pretty important. I bet every adcom has a number in mind that they know dropping below will make their school look bad. So they'll accept the best so many URM applicants until they're at least at or above that number and then accept one URM from the waitlist for every one that doesn't accept the invitation to attend.

I really don't believe that it works that way. I seriously doubt that one URM gets in off the waitlist for every URM that doesn't accept an offer. Do you really believe that adcoms divide applicants into URM and non-URM so completely? As though there were 2 different applicant pools?

 

[CaveatLector]

First off grow up. I called your statement ignorant NOT you. And since you've decided to resort to childish name calling, why don't we take this to PM. That way I can respond appropriately without involving all people in this thread who know how to debate maturely.

Movin, on thank you for posting that article as you just SUPPORTED why we need more URM doctors.

First, you are the one that brought yourself into the argument personally. You want to make it look like you are the authority on the subject because of the work you do. Second, don't split hairs, your comment on my statement being "ignorant" is OBVIOUSLY an attack on me. You didn't write the statement was "unfounded," you wrote "ignorant." A statement cannot be ignorant anymore than a statement can be happy or "feel" sad, etc. Calling my statement ignorant is either a direct or indirect attack on me. But then I didn't need to explain that, because you do cancer research so you must be smart.

Lastly, for someone who does cancer research how is it that you drew the conclusion that we need more urm docs by reading the article I pasted? That's a pretty presumptive conclusion for someone who is in the business of scientific research/reasoning....

And that conclusion is exactly the reason why your argument fails and always will. You start with a premise that only a black doctor can adequately care for a black patient.

That's what this whole thread boils down to--the notion that a black doctor is needed to provide adequate treatment for a black patient. Because you want to assume that there are certain barriers that prevent a white doctor from doing that. Or you want to assume that a white doctor doesn't "care" about black patients enough to make sure they are treated within the standard of care. That's a presumption YOU make. And I submit to you that your presumptions carry over into every aspect of life. If only a black doc can treat a black patient then only an obese doc can treat an obese patient--only a doc who has had cancer can treat a cancer patient--only gay doc can treat a gay patient. And on and on and on. And while we're at it let's only allow women to become ob/gyn's, because, afterall, what the hell do men know when it comes to menstrual cramps?

 

[MoosePilot]

I really don't believe that it works that way. I seriously doubt that one URM gets in off the waitlist for every URM that doesn't accept an offer. Do you really believe that adcoms divide applicants into URM and non-URM so completely? As though there were 2 different applicant pools?

That's what I've heard numerous times. The waitlist at many schools (I won't say all, because each school works differently) works so that someone of the same general demographic gets an invitation when someone else declines.

I don't remember where I heard that, so you could of course discredit it, but it's what I've honestly heard either here on SDN or during other internet research.

 

[Thundrstorm]

That's what I've heard numerous times. The waitlist at many schools (I won't say all, because each school works differently) works so that someone of the same general demographic gets an invitation when someone else declines.

I don't remember where I heard that, so you could of course discredit it, but it's what I've honestly heard either here on SDN or during other internet research.

hmmm.... don't put too much trust into what you hear on SDN.

I did have a frank discussion with an MD/PhD director (not an MD dean, granted) about how his particular program dealt with the URM issue (he seemed to think I cared - haha), and he shared some insight about how other schools handle it, and well, it seemed to me that the focus was on recruitment, not aimed at specific numbers. We didn't discuss waitlists, though.

I guess neither of us really knows, but I just really doubt that it works that way. I mean, what are the other demographics that are used? Some guy from Iowa declines, so you invite someone else from Iowa? What if a black guy from Iowa declines, do you then accept a black guy or a person from Iowa? Or try to find another black person from Iowa? lol.

 

[CaveatLector]

Are we really going to argue the validity of peer-reviewed journals? You're going into the wrong profession if basing your judgments on published research is going to be a problem. I am not asking you to take my statements without question. Thats why I put the reference in. If you have issue, click on it and find the problems. Or find research to the contrary. I'll be open to it and read it. But between your opinions (which have proven to be common misconceptions) and published research, Ill trust the latter.

Scholarly journals serve several purposes: they contribute to the body of knowledge of a science or discipline, serve as potential sources of information for future researchers and help promote the department or University. Since papers are reviewed by other experts in the discipline (a process called peer-review) they are self-correcting in nature. That is, any mistake in research methods or data calculation, and yes, even punctuation and grammar, will most likely be found! However, the most important purpose of scholarly journals and publishing is that it promotes informed debate and discussion between scholars. (not my writing but something from the internet but serves to sum it up concisely)



The wrong profession? EVERY profession utilizes peer-reviewed journals as a way of disseminating research. The medical profession, however, is primarily a HARD science and thus the majority of medicine is based on data that is less likely to be skewed when you are dealing with hard numbers and NOT people's opinions, etc. Social science is different. It is largely based on observance of people's behavior or attitude. Thus research is less dependable and more easily manipulated.

Maybe you don't know the purpose of publishing? One of the primary purposes is so that your peers can try to recreate it and prove it correct or incorrect. Also to build on it and USE it. Research is like bones. Constantly tearing down and rebuilding. Take 2 steps up and one step down then 2 steps up again. Are you telling ME that YOU are going into this profession so you can take every article you read as gospel truth?? Seems to me that if that is the case then one of us is missing the mark, and it's not me...

 

[MoosePilot]

hmmm.... don't put too much trust into what you hear on SDN.

I did have a frank discussion with an MD/PhD director (not an MD dean, granted) about how his particular program dealt with the URM issue (he seemed to think I cared - haha), and he shared some insight about how other schools handle it, and well, it seemed to me that the focus was on recruitment, not aimed at specific numbers. We didn't discuss waitlists, though.

I guess neither of us really knows, but I just really doubt that it works that way. I mean, what are the other demographics that are used? Some guy from Iowa declines, so you invite someone else from Iowa? What if a black guy from Iowa declines, do you then accept a black guy or a person from Iowa? Or try to find another black person from Iowa? lol.

With the law becoming iffy on the legality of AA, I can definitely see admissions staff downplaying numbers and emphasizing recruitment, but seriously, look at my MDapplicants. I've got some incredible life experience, but even my pre-med advisor told me to concentrate on DO schools (which I would have been happy to do, since I hold DO as equal and shadowed two DOs), but I was accepted to two schools before the end of October or so.

I doubt it's that specific, but in-state vs. OOS might be a consideration. I'd bet it doesn't go beyond URM, gender, trad vs. non-trad, in-state vs. OOS.

 

[Thundrstorm]

With the law becoming iffy on the legality of AA, I can definitely see admissions staff downplaying numbers and emphasizing recruitment, but seriously, look at my MDapplicants. I've got some incredible life experience, but even my pre-med advisor told me to concentrate on DO schools (which I would have been happy to do, since I hold DO as equal and shadowed two DOs), but I was accepted to two schools before the end of October or so.

I doubt it's that specific, but in-state vs. OOS might be a consideration. I'd bet it doesn't go beyond URM, gender, trad vs. non-trad, in-state vs. OOS.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are an example of preferential tx for URMs. Your GPA is obviously low, but you also have a freakin 36 on the MCAT (good job on that!), very unique life experiences, quite a few years to distance yourself from that GPA and the ability to show that those grades don't define you now. You also likely had strong essays and LORs. You have no way of knowing whether your race played a factor. If it did, I doubt it was a big one. You don't seem like the kind of applicant who'd need the help anyway.

 

[Thundrstorm]

And since you point to mdapplicants (which I doubt is very accurate anyway), a simple search tells me that there are 34 profiles of blacks with less than 3.5 gpa and less than 30 mcat who were accepted anywhere. With the equivalent stats, there are 270 whites accepted. Of the 304 accepted white and black applicants on mdapplicants.com with <3.5, <30, 11% are black. Of the US population, 12% are black. Hardly a scientific survey, but I always laugh when people point to 1 or 2 specific profiles on URM applicants to prove their point about AA, when in reality, tehre are a proportionate number of white applicants who were accepted with similar numbers. Granted, I don't know where they were accepted b/c I don't care to read 300 profiles, but I just thought I'd share the results of my little test.

 

[1Path]

I've got some incredible life experience, but even my pre-med advisor told me to concentrate on DO schools (which I would have been happy to do, since I hold DO as equal and shadowed two DOs), but I was accepted to two schools before the end of October or so.

If you're the same Moosepilot that is/was a pilot then in my mind no matter what race you are (and I've read lots of your posts), SOMEONE was going to accept you.

What I don't understand about your arguement in this thread is that if you were a URM, you seem to imply that that fact more than any other would be the reason you were accepted. NOT, the amazing EC's or MCAT.

In other words a white person with your stats get accepted based on "qualifications" but a URM with the same stats gets accepted based on race?

 

[1Path]

That's what this whole thread boils down to--the notion that a black doctor is needed to provide adequate treatment for a black patient. Because you want to assume that there are certain barriers that prevent a white doctor from doing that. Or you want to assume that a white doctor doesn't "care" about black patients enough to make sure they are treated within the standard of care. That's a presumption YOU make. And I submit to you that your presumptions carry over into every aspect of life. If only a black doc can treat a black patient then only an obese doc can treat an obese patient--only a doc who has had cancer can treat a cancer patient--only gay doc can treat a gay patient. And on and on and on. And while we're at it let's only allow women to become ob/gyn's, because, afterall, what the hell do men know when it comes to menstrual cramps?

NOW I think YOUR'RE ignorant!

 

[CaveatLector]

And since you point to mdapplicants (which I doubt is very accurate anyway), a simple search tells me that there are 34 profiles of blacks with less than 3.5 gpa and less than 30 mcat who were accepted anywhere. With the equivalent stats, there are 270 whites accepted. Of the 304 accepted white and black applicants on mdapplicants.com with <3.5, <30, 11% are black. Of the US population, 12% are black. Hardly a scientific survey, but I always laugh when people point to 1 or 2 specific profiles on URM applicants to prove their point about AA, when in reality, tehre are a proportionate number of white applicants who were accepted with similar numbers. Granted, I don't know where they were accepted b/c I don't care to read 300 profiles, but I just thought I'd share the results of my little test.

That may be but look at the margins. Doing a search below 30 mcat gives all profiles up through 30. I would expect there to be proportionate numbers of blacks admitted who have similar numbers as the whites. However, if you search at 24 or below with a 3.2 or lower gpa then your search reveals that HALF of the profiles are of non-whites. To argue that color of skin/racism has nothing to do with acceptance in those cases is obviously a crock. But then again that's the "good" brand of racism right?

 

[CaveatLector]

NOW I think YOUR'RE ignorant!

Then I'll see you at the club meeting next week...

 

[gostudy]

And since you point to mdapplicants (which I doubt is very accurate anyway), a simple search tells me that there are 34 profiles of blacks with less than 3.5 gpa and less than 30 mcat who were accepted anywhere. With the equivalent stats, there are 270 whites accepted. Of the 304 accepted white and black applicants on mdapplicants.com with <3.5, <30, 11% are black. Of the US population, 12% are black. Hardly a scientific survey, but I always laugh when people point to 1 or 2 specific profiles on URM applicants to prove their point about AA, when in reality, tehre are a proportionate number of white applicants who were accepted with similar numbers. Granted, I don't know where they were accepted b/c I don't care to read 300 profiles, but I just thought I'd share the results of my little test.

Good point even though mdapps is the opposite of scientific.

 

[Bernito]

Scholarly journals serve several purposes: they contribute to the body of knowledge of a science or discipline, serve as potential sources of information for future researchers and help promote the department or University. Since papers are reviewed by other experts in the discipline (a process called peer-review) they are self-correcting in nature. That is, any mistake in research methods or data calculation, and yes, even punctuation and grammar, will most likely be found! However, the most important purpose of scholarly journals and publishing is that it promotes informed debate and discussion between scholars. (not my writing but something from the internet but serves to sum it up concisely)

The most important purpose is for debate? I disagree. It probably so that we can share with our peers a new understanding about the world.

The wrong profession? EVERY profession utilizes peer-reviewed journals as a way of disseminating research. The medical profession, however, is primarily a HARD science and thus the majority of medicine is based on data that is less likely to be skewed when you are dealing with hard numbers and NOT people's opinions, etc. Social science is different. It is largely based on observance of people's behavior or attitude. Thus research is less dependable and more easily manipulated.

It is true that social science is based more on observation and can potentially be more easily manipulated. But that does not mean you can pick and choose which research you will accept and not (unless you look into it and find fallacy). Just above you yourself quoted an article about a study that was based on survey data and not hard science (more on that below).

Maybe you don't know the purpose of publishing? One of the primary purposes is so that your peers can try to recreate it and prove it correct or incorrect. Also to build on it and USE it. Research is like bones. Constantly tearing down and rebuilding. Take 2 steps up and one step down then 2 steps up again. Are you telling ME that YOU are going into this profession so you can take every article you read as gospel truth?? Seems to me that if that is the case then one of us is missing the mark, and it's not me...

Alright so I've put up more than a few "bones." I take them as a true indication of healthcare today because its not just one study, but mounds of studies. Find 2 studies to refute them as you said you could (which probably requires you actually reading the ones I posted). I will be open to anything you find. I won't immediately write them off as biased or slanted simply to hold on to my predetermined convictions.

What you posted was not published research but a "summary" of a 2 hour seminar entitled Improving Cancer Survival By Understanding Racial/Ethnic Disparities. The portion discussing fatalism lasted a whopping 1 minute (see 1:17 minutes into the movie). The article neglected to include all the other factors discussed in the seminar that led to a discrepancy in cancer outcome for minorities. These included minorities being less likely to be referred to an oncologist, less likely to receive chemo or radiation, a difference in health insurance and education level, in addition to the biological differences in tumor growth.

But that does not mean I think fatalism plays no role. That's a medical education problem. But how often do you think a patient comes in with misconceptions about his disease? Should a smoker with lung cancer be turned away because they should know better? A doctor should not judge the patient, but serve them and educate them. But by saying oh 'she's black she probably thinks she is supposed to get cancer' you have again stereotyped the patient. Having a black doctor is not guaranteed to fix the problem, but it has been shown in numerous studies that compliance to chemo was increased, follow up appointments were more often held, and overall patient satisfaction where increased when the patient and provider where of the same race. (EDIT: Could increased cultural competence have the same benefit? I think so, but I think both more URM doctors and increased cultural competence are necessary).

 

[1Path]

What you posted was not published research but a summary of a 2 hour seminar entitled Improving Cancer Survival By Understanding Racial/Ethnic Disparities. The portion discussing fatalism lasted a whopping 1 minute (see 1:17 minutes into the movie). The article neglected to include all the other factors discussed in the seminar that led to a discrepancy in cancer outcome for minorities. These included minorities being less likely to be referred to an oncologist, less likely to receive chemo or radiation, a difference in health insurance and education level, in addition to the biological differences in tumor growth.

But that does not mean I think fatalism plays no role. That's a medical education problem. But how often do you think a patient comes in with misconceptions about his disease? Should a smoker with lung cancer be turned away because they should know better? A doctor should not judge the patient, but serve them and educate them. But by saying oh 'she's black she probably thinks she is supposed to get cancer' you have again stereotyped the patient. Having a black doctor is not guaranteed to fix the problem, but it has been shown in numerous studies that compliance to chemo was increased, follow up appointments were more often held, and overall patient satisfaction where increased when the patient and provider where of the same race.

All I can say is that this thread is full of amazing future Physicians, some who also happen to be URM as well!!!

Bernito, sounds like you've had some experiences "in the trenches". Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bernito]

Bernito, sounds like you've had some experiences "in the trenches". Thanks for sharing!

Thanks. But its more like I am preparing myself for the trenches.

The faster we all get on the same page, the sooner we will no longer have the need for that little URM checkbox. And that's what everybody wants, right?

 

[gostudy]

Somewhat off topic, but definitely relevant. How do you feel about the "Rooney Rule" in the NFL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule

 

[Thundrstorm]

That may be but look at the margins. Doing a search below 30 mcat gives all profiles up through 30. I would expect there to be proportionate numbers of blacks admitted who have similar numbers as the whites. However, if you search at 24 or below with a 3.2 or lower gpa then your search reveals that HALF of the profiles are of non-whites. To argue that color of skin/racism has nothing to do with acceptance in those cases is obviously a crock. But then again that's the "good" brand of racism right?

Ignoring the 3 profiles that get pulled up b/c the authors put 0 in the MCAT and GPA boxes, there are 7 people on mdapps with less than 24 and 3.2 who were accepted (if I follow your advice, and not include 24 in my search). Obviously, 7 is a small sample size and not one that can be extrapolated to a much larger sample. Regardless, there are 5 whites, 1 black, and 1 hispanic with acceptances at this range. 14% are black. That's consistent. If we include people w/24 MCATs, we have 12 total, 3 of which are black. (yes, there are other non-whites, but I don't know if they are all URMs, so let's just stick with my original comparison). So, 25% are black. Perhaps a bit higher than expected, but we don't know if they got in because of race or because one went to Hopkins and had good ECs, and another, for instance, had a 3.5 BCPM. I, for one, would not take this as evidence of AA.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could stop putting words in my mouth. I did not argue that skin color has nothing to do with acceptance, nor did I say that any brand of racism is acceptable. You're a very difficult person to have an intelligent discussion with.

 

[CaveatLector]

Ignoring the 3 profiles that get pulled up b/c the authors put 0 in the MCAT and GPA boxes, there are 7 people on mdapps with less than 24 and 3.2 who were accepted (if I follow your advice, and not include 24 in my search). Obviously, 7 is a small sample size and not one that can be extrapolated to a much larger sample. Regardless, there are 5 whites, 1 black, and 1 hispanic with acceptances at this range. 14% are black. That's consistent. If we include people w/24 MCATs, we have 12 total, 3 of which are black. (yes, there are other non-whites, but I don't know if they are all URMs, so let's just stick with my original comparison). So, 25% are black. Perhaps a bit higher than expected, but we don't know if they got in because of race or because one went to Hopkins and had good ECs, and another, for instance, had a 3.5 BCPM. I, for one, would not take this as evidence of AA.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could stop putting words in my mouth. I did not argue that skin color has nothing to do with acceptance, nor did I say that any brand of racism is acceptable. You're a very difficult person to have an intelligent discussion with.

Putting words in your mouth? I didn't attribute words to YOUR mouth. Responding to your post was a general response to the post AND to the group discussion in general. The point is to use the post and put it in context to the group discussion. Stop getting all offended over nothing.

 

[Thundrstorm]

Somewhat off topic, but definitely relevant. How do you feel about the "Rooney Rule" in the NFL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule

I think it'd be nice if there were a good number of minority coaches without having to enforce a rule. There's no problem recruiting minority players, so why shouldn't there be minority coaches? Since, as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), there aren't many minority coaches, a rule like this forces teams to give everyone a fair shot. I think the assumption behind this rule is that, as opposed to a lack of qualified candidates, there is a lack of attempt to hire qualified minority candidates. It wouldn't surprise me if this assumption were true. I have no problem with the NFL not having many minority coaches, as long as that fact is not a result of discrimination. I suppose the rule is meant to make sure that doesn't happen -- notice, it only requires interviews, not hiring, of these coaches.

For all the talk of diversity in med schools, how many faculty members or deans are black? I wonder.

 

[Thundrstorm]

Putting words in your mouth? I didn't attribute words to YOUR mouth. Responding to your post was a general response to the post AND to the group discussion in general. The point is to use the post and put it in context to the group discussion. Stop getting all offended over nothing.

I'm not offended. I merely assumed that your response to my quoted post was actually meant for me; what a silly assumption. What was I thinking?

 

[1Path]

I think the assumption behind this rule is that, as opposed to a lack of qualified candidates, there is a lack of attempt to hire qualified minority candidates. It wouldn't surprise me if this assumption were true.

The NFL situation is quite interesting to me personally. If teams put as much effort in hiring black coaches as they do in "hiring" black players, there would be many, many more black head coaches in the NHL.

When was the last time you saw or heard of a football coach in the news for trying to "bribe" a black coach into coming to their team?

 

[1Path]

For all the talk of diversity in med schools, how many faculty members or deans are black? I wonder.

I believe that answer is 2 Deans at White med schools. Dr.Ross (Diana's sister) at PCOM (I think) and Dr. Wilson at UMaryland who I unfortunately heard will be stepping down soon.

 

[Bernito]

Somewhat off topic, but definitely relevant. How do you feel about the "Rooney Rule" in the NFL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule

This article is on ESPN.com right now.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=smith_michael&id=2304091
I see it as very similar process to what we are discussing. Let the URM get his foot into the interview room, then let him show them what he’s got. No guarantees.

For all the talk of diversity in med schools, how many faculty members or deans are black? I wonder.

Between 4-5%. (Edit, but that includes historically black institutions) And that is of all minorities. (All minorities make up about 25% of the US popln).

 

[CaveatLector]

The most important purpose is for debate? I disagree. It probably so that we can share with our peers a new understanding about the world.).

And you MAY disagree. However, as you will notice I qualified the paragraph. I didn't write it I used it to simply illustrate a point. I happen to agree with you on the debate prong.

It is true that social science is based more on observation and can potentially be more easily manipulated. But that does not mean you can pick and choose which research you will accept and not (unless you look into it and find fallacy). Just above you yourself quoted an article about a study that was based on survey data and not hard science (more on that below).

I know I did. And how can you NOT? Figuring out reasons why certain people don't visit the doc is NOT hard science. JOe Blow could give one answer on Sunday and a different one on Wed. There is no such thing as E=MC^2 hard science in this type of research. That's my point. Someone earlier argued the absolute reasons why black women don't seek preventive care. I posted the article to illustrate the other side of the coin.

(EDIT: Could increased cultural competence have the same benefit? I think so, but I think both more URM doctors and increased cultural competence are necessary).

First, I don't buy into the idea that black patients get better care from black docs than from white docs. That is assuming the premise that both patients and doc are racist or prejudiced for some reason or just plain do not care about either themselves and the well-being of people in general. And you know what, if each race provides it's own race with better care then where does that leave us?? Full circle---blacks only health care clinics (awfully reminiscent of blacks only drinking fountains). Based on that premise this country NEEDS segregated health care facilities. And why? Because black patients will get better care from black docs, latinos patients will get.....etc.
That is basically what is being advocated when you say black patients are better cared for by black docs.