Do medical schools indirectly prefer rich/wealthy applicants?

[beBrave]

Here's a counter question, "Do Medical offices prefer patients with private insurance policies vs medicaid?".

Doctors want patients however they still want to be paid. Medicaid often pays a very low rate compared to private insurance. Not all Doctors accept Medicaid but a great deal do. Do Doctors favor the patients more with private insurances than those with Medicaid, it really depends on the Doctor; ethically they should not and I believe that while most Doctors are conscious of this difference (especially as it allows them to better put together a plan for the patients treatment), yes there are Doctor Kelso's out their that basically will direct a patient somewhere else or simply not see them (we are talking about private practices).

An establishment will always prefer that a person has the ability to pay but in many cases; especially such as medical school, they won't hold it against you and will often offer different financing options; which is also the case at many Physician offices. I saw a lawyer yesterday I couldn't afford the cost of his services; he didn't turn me away; instead we setup a payment plan with something down. Usually anything good in life is going to cost you; however that doesn't mean that you can't find a way to afford it; also it doesn't mean that an establishment wants your business any less.

Medical schools have bigger concerns than students paying; the quality of the students that they accept and graduate will define the value of the University publicly; this in turn will affect reputation and reputation often leads to potential government grants and private business being attracted to an institution because of its reputation for the students it produces. For this reason schools will want to take in quality candidates so they can produce quality candidates. Look at Harvard University; they may have a Medical School but the school makes tons of money through research work; research that attracts big business that are will to pay in the hundreds of millions and billions.

If a school see's a very promising candidate (possibly someone who has even gotten local or media attention), they will find a way for them to attend because just having that student attend the school is increasing the equity in their establishment. Universities invest in people just as much as people invest in universities. When you look at the quality of a University, you can clearly see this notion at work. Harvard wants quality applicants but yes they tend to cost more; parents and students who want the best education work hard to get an acceptance from Harvard that requires both good grades and the ability to pay however ones ability to pay is less important than ones value to the university as each student is an investment.

The University is built upon the names of the students that it produces and the great things that they go on to do; students who graduate from the University carry the name of the University with them that is built upon the reputation of producing the best of the best (regardless if every agree's with this sentiment or not). It's one big cycle in the end.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kimposibl]

Here's a counter question, "Do Medical offices prefer patients with private insurance policies vs medicaid?".

Doctors want patients however they still want to be paid. Medicaid often pays a very low rate compared to private insurance. Not all Doctors accept Medicaid but a great deal do. Do Doctors favor the patients more with private insurances than those with Medicaid, it really depends on the Doctor; ethically they should not and I believe that while most Doctors are conscious of this difference (especially as it allows them to better put together a plan for the patients treatment), yes there are Doctor Kelso's out their that basically will direct a patient somewhere else or simply not see them (we are talking about private practices).

An establishment will always prefer that a person has the ability to pay but in many cases; especially such as medical school, they won't hold it against you and will often offer different financing options; which is also the case at many Physician offices. I saw a lawyer yesterday I couldn't afford the cost of his services; he didn't turn me away; instead we setup a payment plan with something down. Usually anything good in life is going to cost you; however that doesn't mean that you can't find a way to afford it; also it doesn't mean that an establishment wants your business any less.

Medical schools have bigger concerns than students paying; the quality of the students that they accept and graduate will define the value of the University publicly; this in turn will affect reputation and reputation often leads to potential government grants and private business being attracted to an institution because of its reputation for the students it produces. For this reason schools will want to take in quality candidates so they can produce quality candidates. Look at Harvard University; they may have a Medical School but the school makes tons of money through research work; research that attracts big business that are will to pay in the hundreds of millions and billions.

If a school see's a very promising candidate (possibly someone who has even gotten local or media attention), they will find a way for them to attend because just having that student attend the school is increasing the equity in their establishment. Universities invest in people just as much as people invest in universities. When you look at the quality of a University, you can clearly see this notion at work. Harvard wants quality applicants but yes they tend to cost more; parents and students who want the best education work hard to get an acceptance from Harvard that requires both good grades and the ability to pay however ones ability to pay is less important than ones value to the university as each student is an investment.

The University is built upon the names of the students that it produces and the great things that they go on to do; students who graduate from the University carry the name of the University with them that is built upon the reputation of producing the best of the best (regardless if every agree's with this sentiment or not). It's one big cycle in the end.

Hospitals and Doctors like Medicare best. Uncle Sam is like a tree growing money to them. Hospitals and docs have to fight private insurance companies for payment. Medicaid... well, I don't know too much about that, but its possibly the least favorite.

Schools also get their money from Uncle Sam and private parties (donations). Medicare funds residency. NIH funds research. I don't think they get funds from how smart their students are and what they do later in life.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Here's a counter question, "Do Medical offices prefer patients with private insurance policies vs medicaid?".

Argument doesn't hold water. The broke or old person without the money/credit to pay out of pocket for medical insurance or cost of care can't wander down to the local savings and loan and take out a low interest, government secured loan for whatever amount that they desire. Any student (with very, very few exceptions) can immediately take out loans for the entire cost of their education. All medical students are in the "private insurance" group. Medical schools will get paid their tuition and fees, one way or another. I do not hear of many medical students getting hounded by the collection agency representing their school's financial aid office while their running around the wards 3rd year. You know why? Because the school is already paid up in full. Now one day the student and their loan servicer might have a problem, but that isn't something that the school has any skin in.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Hospitals and Doctors like Medicare best. Uncle Sam is like a tree growing money to them. Hospitals and docs have to fight private insurance companies for payment. Medicaid... well, I don't know too much about that, but its possibly the least favorite.

Schools also get their money from Uncle Sam and private parties (donations). Medicare funds residency. NIH funds research. I don't think they get funds from how smart their students are and what they do later in life.

Can't tell if serious. That is not the case. At all.

 

[kimposibl]

Can't tell if serious. That is not the case. At all.

I'm serious. Explains all the Medicare fraud.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

I'm serious. Explains all the Medicare fraud.

So you're saying that all doctors and hospitals knowingly commit Medicare fraud, and knowing that they can pull that off, they prefer to have those patients?

 

[kimposibl]

So you're saying that all doctors and hospitals knowingly commit Medicare fraud, and knowing that they can pull that off, they prefer to have those patients?

They don't prefer anyone. But Medicare is where the money's at. I don't think all hospitals and docs are frauds. Why would I want to work in one as one otherwise? (Unless I'm, by reasoning, a fraud! *gasp*)

I was just responding to a post.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

They don't prefer anyone. But Medicare is where the money's at. I don't think all hospitals and docs are frauds. Why would I want to work in one as one otherwise? (Unless I'm, by reasoning, a fraud! *gasp*)

I was just responding to a post.

And your response was very, very counter to what my experience has been. Just trying to think through why that might be. No worries

 

[circulus vitios]

"Meanwhile, the median reported parental income increased to $113,000 in 2011, up from $110,000 in 2009 and 2010."

https://www.aamc.org/download/269322/data/msq2011.pdf

It's also fun to look at educational backgrounds. Over 50% of fathers of medical students hold a doctorate degree, compared to about 10% of the general US population. https://www.aamc.org/download/142770/data/aibvol9_no10.pdf

 

[beBrave]

Argument doesn't hold water. The broke or old person without the money/credit to pay out of pocket for medical insurance or cost of care can't wander down to the local savings and loan and take out a low interest, government secured loan for whatever amount that they desire. Any student (with very, very few exceptions) can immediately take out loans for the entire cost of their education. All medical students are in the "private insurance" group. Medical schools will get paid their tuition and fees, one way or another. I do not hear of many medical students getting hounded by the collection agency representing their school's financial aid office while their running around the wards 3rd year. You know why? Because the school is already paid up in full. Now one day the student and their loan servicer might have a problem, but that isn't something that the school has any skin in.

True however typically medical cost are lower than student loans for things like office visits and Medication. The broke old person may sacrifice things like eating (or not paying other bills) to afford their Medical bills for visits, medication and whatever else.There may not be government secured loans for the broke old person but there is aid available for people that can't afford all their coverage cost, various private and public options are available (just like with education, you have to do your research). Just because the school is not the one ultimately chasing the students for loan repayment doesn't remove them from the situation entirely; the debt originates at the school so I find it irrelevant whom ultimately collects it.

That very very few exceptions is incorrect; numerous students do not have great credit; I see no proof that says that almost any student will be able to easily afford Medical school education in loans (with very very few exceptions); please provide some form of proof on this. I'm paying a law firm as we speak to get my credit score up 100 points so that I can afford my loans when the time comes and keep in mind my credit score is not bottom of the barrel. Also Med students are typically young people; I doubt 95% of all applicants have been responsible with credit up until this point. I had a friend whose grandmother mortgaged her house so he could go to Podiatry school. I disagree with your statement almost entirely.

They don't prefer anyone. But Medicare is where the money's at. I don't think all hospitals and docs are frauds. Why would I want to work in one as one otherwise? (Unless I'm, by reasoning, a fraud! *gasp*)

I was just responding to a post.

I think it depends. Doctors that enjoy seeing repeat patients may like Medicare because they are essentially treating a person for nothing. Patient has pain in leg; visits Doctor who prescribes Medication; they return later that week complain of pain; Doctor happily greets them; advises increasing dosage but tells patient to follow up if anything. Patient visits Doctors office 3-4 times in one month for the same issue. Patient sits in waiting room for 1 - 3 hours; nurse does most of the work getting patients vitals; and anything else needed. Doctor walks in; says a few reassuring words; smiles with the patient; shows empathy; patient leaves happy knowing that the Doctor is their protector. Doctor spends a total of maybe 20 minutes actually seeing patient over the course of a month and bills Medicare for each of these visits. While there is a cap on Medicare payments, the Doctor has multiple patients like this and makes quite a good amount for their practice. Especially with older patients who suffer from multiple issues, while the Doctor could dismiss some issues, they really don't have to because older individuals and people who have to receive medicare likely have a lower quality of life (its not always the case but statistically it is more common) and a lower quality of life is linked scientifically to higher instances of disability and illness for various reasons that relate to anything from nutrition to exercise and lifestyle. The Doctor is doing nothing wrong seeing these patients over and over. If someone (medicare) ever tries to challenge this, the patient will advocate for the Doctor and say that they are a very good Doctor (because the Doctor is giving them the constant reassurance that they need). There was a study that actually showed that malpractice rates were higher among Doctors that spent less time with patients versus those that spend less. Even more surprising is despite the fact that in some cases the mistake was actually made by the Doctor that spent more time with the patient, the person being sued was the one who spent less time with the patient and make a correct assessment.

On the other hand; Some Doctor's do not want to deal with the vast quantity of patients; they would rather see fewer patients but have a higher profit return. Less stress, less charts to keep track of and less responsibility. These Doctors prefer private insurance agencies because they can request additional test that they know the insurance agency will pay for; even services like physical therapy that their clinic might conveniently offer. There is a reason so many Doctors go for MBA's.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

the debt originates at the school so I find it irrelevant whom ultimately collects it.

False. No student is ever in debt to their school. In debt to a loan servicer? Sure. How a student is going to fund their medical education is not a factor for admissions. I just don't have the energy right now to keep trying to have these thought experiments with you. I have listened to how adcomms make decisions on who gets accepted and who doesn't. Ability to pay is not a factor at non-profit, US MD and DO schools. Period. By all means, keep pressing this issue as you seem to feel strongly about it. But your initial premise, that medical schools favor students able to pay out of pocket for the cost of attendance is wrong. Full stop.

 

[beBrave]

False. No student is ever in debt to their school. In debt to a loan servicer? Sure. How a student is going to fund their medical education is not a factor for admissions. I just don't have the energy right now to keep trying to have these thought experiments with you. I have listened to how adcomms make decisions on who gets accepted and who doesn't. Ability to pay is not a factor at non-profit, US MD and DO schools. Period. By all means, keep pressing this issue as you seem to feel strongly about it. But your initial premise, that medical schools favor students able to pay out of pocket for the cost of attendance is wrong. Full stop.

My initial and current assessment has not been that med schools favored students with the ability to pay out of pocket (I actually argued otherwise). My argument is that the school must carry some responsibility when it comes to tuition and the out of pocket cost for students (Devils advocate). Many of my own points were reflected in your own post later. I did however discuss the quality of the education in relation to the cost of the tuition in my earlier post.

"Ability to pay is not a factor at non-profit, US MD and DO schools".

Ability to pay is always a factor; if you can't pay, you can't attend. Now how far you are willing to go to gain the ability to pay is an entirely different subject.

Anyway back to Netflix; I just started scrubs season 1. JD is so deep.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

My initial and current assessment has not been that med schools favored students with the ability to pay out of pocket (I actually argued otherwise). My argument is that the school must carry some responsibility when it comes to tuition and the out of pocket cost for students (Devils advocate). Many of my own points were reflected in your own post later. I did however discuss the quality of the education in relation to the cost of the tuition in my earlier post.



Ability to pay is always a factor; if you can't pay, you can't attend. Now how far you are willing to go to gain the ability to pay is an entirely different subject.

Anyway back to Netflix; I just started scrubs season 1. JD is so deep.

The initial directions of this thread were twofold. 1. Do the schools themselves favor rich applicants? No, they don't. 2. Does the process favor rich applicants (holding other variables constant)? Of course it does, hard to think of a process that doesn't favor those with more resources. Then it changed directions into some stuff I don't really understand, and then it turned into this argument where med schools are like physicians, and they have to favor one type of payer over another, which never really went anywhere.

 

[beBrave]

The initial directions of this thread were twofold. 1. Do the schools themselves favor rich applicants? No, they don't. 2. Does the process favor rich applicants (holding other variables constant)? Of course it does, hard to think of a process that doesn't favor those with more resources. Then it changed directions into some stuff I don't really understand, and then it turned into this argument where med schools are like physicians, and they have to favor one type of payer over another, which never really went anywhere.

I agree with you. The example of a Physician and a patients ability to pay, was only a comparative (not perfect) example of the relation between ones ability to pay and the perspective and attitude of an establishment to render services in regards to the OP's original question "Do medical schools indirectly prefer rich/wealthy applicants?"; The only thing that matters is:

1. Do the schools themselves favor rich applicants?

No, they don't.

2. Does the process favor rich applicants (holding other variables constant)?

Of course it does, hard to think of a process that doesn't favor those with more resources.

That answers it superbly. Case closed.

Until someone else chimes in an re-opens it.

 

[hopeles]

this question wasn't answered to medical schools give priority/prefer students that come from wealthy households?

 

[SN12357]

this question wasn't answered to medical schools give priority/prefer students that come from wealthy households?

Medical schools don't 'prefer' students from wealthy households in an absolute sense. However, students from wealthy households have innumerable advantages throughout the process (better education; better medical care; freedom from money concerns/needing to work; connections; private tutors; mommy and daddy making phone calls if a teacher dares give a bad grade; the list goes on).

The 'preference' plays out over all the years of a person's life. It's not something that's an explicit preference of the admissions committee. Adcoms want diversity in their classes.

And this was answered above. I don't know what other answer you expect to get.

 

[Diagnose]

Cut resident funding and divert it to medical schools.

 

[SpesMeaInDeoEst]

Not sure if they prefer it, but it sure doesn't hurt.

 

[SunsFun]

Resources help. 20% of med students graduate debt-free. Even among med schools, there's a difference between the pedigrees and backgrounds of those from private vs. state schools. It also takes money to pursue competitive specialties: numerous away rotations, more applications and interviews, taking a year off for research.

Still, I sense you are rationalizing being "disadvantaged". (What exactly is "financially disadvantaged"? Every 12 year old ghetto kid rocks a new pair of Nikes. Back in my day, the only kid I knew who could afford Nikes sold drugs.)

Being poor is not an excuse. It takes more work but you can do it if you have the capacity and drive. Loans, military, etc. can get you the money you need. Even if you don't make it to med school, a premed degree is a good investment that provides an entryway to RN, PA, PT careers.

Having been around both poor people and rich working people, I can say most poor people are of below average intelligence. There are 250 people at my law firm that each make $2-3 million. I'd say 60-75% come from privileged backgrounds, 10% are from humble backgrounds and the rest are solidly middle class. What they all have in common is they are the smartest and the hardest working people I have ever met.

The biggest resource of all is genetics. The separation of haves and havenots begins with innate ability. Darwin would agree that the chimps with an inborn predisposition to: cooperate, invest in their young (as opposed to pump and dump), solve problems, organize, plan, and amass resources will eventually push out the monkey that can't.

Look at Jews (who have well-documented, above average IQs) who have been subject to persecution for centuries. Jews were excluded from law and medicine for a long time, but dominate those professions after only a short time of being accepted. Or blacks who were excluded from basketball, but are now dominating after a short time. The people on this earth aren't much different from bacteria in petri dish. Introduce a few bacteria will a few favorable mutations and they will outcompete and dominate the other bacteria in that petri dish.

Thought experiment: If North Koreans were suddenly freed from dictatorial oppression, what would their society look like within 15 years? Would their society resemble Somalia? A post-Balkans society? An Afghan warlord society? A typical big American city like Washington D.C., rife with rampant drug use, single motherhood, and crime? Would they lead the world in rape like South Africa? Or would they be indistinguishable from South Korean society, complete with electronic toilets, iPhone crushing Samsungs, and Gangnam style rappers?

Just read this gem. At first I was positive it was trolling but after reading several more comments I am not so sure anymore.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

 

[thefritz]

Just read this gem. At first I was positive it was trolling but after reading several more comments I am not so sure anymore.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

What part about it bothers you? Most poor people who stay poor are not very smart and/or are very lazy and/or are physically or mentally disabled in some way (including substance abuse). There are plenty of transient poor people in life, people with IQs of 130 working at McDonald's. The difference is they won't still be there in 10 years.

Kids who are born into poverty but who are brilliant typically have interesting paths through life. They don't always get formal education, but they still succeed in whatever they do because their intelligence drives them to be interested in things rather than sleep until noon and watch TV all day (e.g., they get bored of smoking weed and petty theft when they are 16 and decide to tear down the engine in their iroc and build it out of sheer curiosity with no guidance due to innate mechanical and 3 dimensional spatial ability). Or they pick up an instrument and master it within a year. Or they go to vegas and count cards. Etc. A lot of these people end up in college in their 30s. One of my mentors in med school was like this. Failed all through high school. 4.0 through college and his doctorate in his 30s. Check out the non-trad forum. Plenty of "how can i overcome the transgressions of my youth" posts.

Edit: I guess you're mad that the guy basically said that Asians and Jews are innately more intelligent that your stereotypical lazy American? Using stereotypes is pretty dumb, but you'd have to be blind not to see that intelligent parents USUALLY have intelligent children. Everyone once in a while two imbeciles produce a genius, and two doctors produce someone who can't get past algebra I.

 

[SunsFun]

What part about it bothers you? Most poor people who stay poor are not very smart and/or are very lazy and/or are physically or mentally disabled in some way (including substance abuse). There are plenty of transient poor people in life, people with IQs of 130 working at McDonald's. The difference is they won't still be there in 10 years.

Kids who are born into poverty but who are brilliant typically have interesting paths through life. They don't always get formal education, but they still succeed in whatever they do because their intelligence drives them to be interested in things rather than sleep until noon and watch TV all day (e.g., they get bored of smoking weed and petty theft when they are 16 and decide to tear down the engine in their iroc and build it out of sheer curiosity with no guidance due to innate mechanical and 3 dimensional spatial ability). Or they pick up an instrument and master it within a year. Or they go to vegas and count cards. Etc. A lot of these people end up in college in their 30s. One of my mentors in med school was like this. Failed all through high school. 4.0 through college and his doctorate in his 30s. Check out the non-trad forum. Plenty of "how can i overcome the transgressions of my youth" posts.

Edit: I guess you're mad that the guy basically said that Asians and Jews are innately more intelligent that your stereotypical lazy American? Using stereotypes is pretty dumb, but you'd have to be blind not to see that intelligent parents USUALLY have intelligent children. Everyone once in a while two imbeciles produce a genius, and two doctors produce someone who can't get past algebra I.

I find every single paragraph in his response to be:

1. Based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

2. Not making much sense.

3. Attempting to justify poverty, racism (off topic!), and classism.

4. Simply inaccurate.

5. Offensive.

Edit: it reads like a high school paper arguing in defense of eugenics.

 

[thefritz]

I find every single paragraph in his response to be:

1. Based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

2. Not making much sense.

3. Attempting to justify poverty, racism (off topic!), and classism.

4. Simply inaccurate.

5. Offensive.

Edit: it reads like a high school paper arguing in defense of eugenics.

I don't see where you are getting the idea it was racist. I also don't know what you mean by "justifying poverty." Do you think that it is a problem that people are poor because they are lazy and unintelligent? I also don't see anything in what he wrote advocating for the active sterilization of certain groups. His statements appear to be pedantic observations of natural selection.

Simply mentioning attributes of groups of people does not make one racist in the common use of the term (i.e., it is not racist to comment that Jews tend to be intelligent, blacks tend to be athletic, and asians tend to be technologically advanced no more than it is sexist to comment that men tend to be taller than women or that women tend to be less violent than men). I have an issue with the term "racist" being applied liberally to any sort of comment that applies to a characteristic of a certain group of people (i.e., observing differences in races does not make you racist). Every race has its strengths and weaknesses. Racism popularly refers to value systems that view certain races as superior and certain races as inferior and specifically the implementation of these value systems to justify unequal treatment. It is an vestigial anathema in modern society gradually being eradicated as the races merge and knowledge increases. It's basically the nadir of human thinking, and I don't see that in what he wrote. I'm interested why you think the comments are racist. It's gotten a certain narcissistic tone to it, for sure.

 

[Five0tomed68]

I find every single paragraph in his response to be:

1. Based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

2. Not making much sense.

3. Attempting to justify poverty, racism (off topic!), and classism.

4. Simply inaccurate.

5. Offensive.

Edit: it reads like a high school paper arguing in defense of eugenics.

I didn't see anything racist about the comment. The poster used some terms that could be considered derogatory, but I believe that she/he did so due to a previous poster's comments. I think he made some general statements about the economically disadvantaged. If you apply the general comments to a particular race, that would be deemed racist. However, the poster did not single out a particular race. Did you apply the comments to a particular race?

 

[Quizlet04]

Depending on what study you read, the heritability of IQ is anywhere from .3 to .9 (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n4/box/nrg2322_BX4.html). The IQ of an adopted child eventually looks more like the IQ of his biological parents instead of his adoptive parents. There is some evidence that the heritability of IQ may be altered by socioeconomic factors as well. You can do the pubmed searches if you'd like.

Long story short: people with lower IQs will tend to have children with lower IQs. This will covary with socioeconomic status, since in theory, someone who is less intelligent will have fewer high-paying options available. It's possible that lower IQ and/or poverty is correlated with poorer frontal lobe function. Perhaps that impairs planning and self-control, leading to less useful life choices. These are all valid theories that people are still examining. It's not PC, but it's valid.

As for grad school: LOLOLOLOLOL

That's hugely different those because science/engineering PhD programs (almost?) always not only pay for your school, but also pay a monthly stipend. It's not a lot of money, but you can still easily make it out of grad school without incurring any extra debt....

As a science grad student, I made 1.6K a month, post-tax, for 9 months a year. We had to scramble for those three summer months. Where I lived, 1.6K a month qualified me for food stamps. A studio apartment in the hood was 1K a month. Everyone I knew took out loans. As much as a med student? No, but think of this:

A senior, tenured faculty member at the top of his game is going to make in the 150K range at an average school. But the average assistant professor is going to make in the 100K range. This is assuming that you're getting grants and you're in the sciences. The problem is that the number of tenure track positions available is miniscule. There are definitely industry jobs available, but the fact is that the US is pumping out PhDs in biology and chem who can't find jobs. Meanwhile, the high tech PhDs are all imported from other countries for a pittance, thanks to HB1 visas. In other words, on average, a PhD is going to be worth less than an MD 10-15 years down the road.

And as for the 10 hours a week bull****, 10 hours a week covers about 1/6th of the average lab work for your average science PhD. This doesn't include writing grants and papers or dealing with your stupid college students as an overworked TA.

 

[Five0tomed68]

Depending on what study you read, the heritability of IQ is anywhere from .3 to .9 (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n4/box/nrg2322_BX4.html). The IQ of an adopted child eventually looks more like the IQ of his biological parents instead of his adoptive parents. There is some evidence that the heritability of IQ may be altered by socioeconomic factors as well. You can do the pubmed searches if you'd like.

Interesting post. IQ is part of the puzzle. I think you are seriously downplaying a stable family and the socioeconomic factor.

In my line of work, I had the great experience of witnessing kids dealing drugs. A group of about 8 14-17 year old kids selling drugs on a daily basis around the clock. The youngest arrested from this particular group was a 12 year old girl. You know who was overseeing the business? 2-3 of their legal guardians. The parents were generally in close proximity while the kids were doing business. Anytime you would go talk to the kids, the parents would step out and try to intervene. They were able to do this because they were un-employed. However, they had a different rental car about 3-4 times a month. A third kid's mom was addicted to the very drug he sold.

I know this is worst case scenario, but you can not tell me that you think if these kids were adopted and raised by decent people in a different area with a better peer group, that they would not have a better chance of success in life. At the very least, they would probably find an average job and live an average life.

I proposed a theory to my peer group. I suggested (hoped) that 10% of the people I dealt with on a daily basis (the drug boys, the stick-up kids, the b&e kids) would have a chance of making something better of themselves. Nobody would agree that it was possible. People who had been in the job for 20 years said that most of the kids would be doing the same thing for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately, everyone in that particular group ended up being felons before hey turned 18, which hinders any likely hood of me being right about them making something of themselves. The crazy part is some of them seemed to be of at least average and maybe slightly above average intelligence.

To tie it to the OP question, if one of these kids had a life altering experience prior to arrest, and we had identical stats (which obviously is not likely with all the facets that make up an application), I'm certain a program would take them over me. I also would say they are more deserving of a spot. Therefore, no medical schools do not prefer rich kids. However, the system is set-up so that having money gives you an advantage.

Sorry for the long rant. I haven't whined in a while about under age corner pharmaceutical reps and their parental support.

 

[StephanieZ]

I haven't done any research on this. I'm just wondering. So i'm sure every medical school out there promotes diversity in their mission and vision statement...students from various socioeconomic backgrounds. But if you think about about it, If completing medical school is costing more than a quarter million dollars, who is more likely to apply to medical school? The rich and wealthy applicants, right? It's not like medical schools are offering full ride scholarships for low income and middle income applicants. I'm sure medical schools will sell "you'll make that money someday and pay it back"...but a debt is never a good thing...if you can avoid it all together avoid it. With the current Federal law you cannot file bankruptcy on students loans. If you a highly competitive applicant from a disadvantaged background, more than likely you are facing numerous challenges as it is at home. The added stress of a huge debt accumulation makes it tough to pursue your dream. There are other costs associated in the pre-med process with no guarantee you will make it. It's an expensive risk for some. That's a heavy burden for a 21 year old. If you are a rich or a wealthy applicant, you can afford to take the risk regardless of the outcome.

Also, I wonder if there are any stats out there on how diverse medical schools really are based on income. I wonder if medical schools reveal this information? I have a friend who is a physician from a very disadvantaged background. She was offered loans with high interest by the medical school as part of their diversity loan program. She didn't know at 21 years old that was not a good offer. It's too late now.

I have many close friends and family members who are physicians still paying back that debt and it's a heavy burden. I remember working with a pediatrician, she was so excited because she just signed her last check to pay off her debt. She was about 50 years old. She attend medical school as a traditional student.

Also, have medical schools considered including a personal financial management course as part of the medical school curriculum?

Don't get me wrong, if you know in your heart you want to be a physician, I say go for it. That high debt should not prevent you from pursuing your goal regardless of your background. But it just seems to me the whole system is designed to attract the rich and wealthy applicants.

excuse my typos

I've seen this argument but I still don't buy it. As someone from a mid/low SES, I sometimes tend to view med school acceptance as my "golden ticket". I won't be paying off debt til I'm fifty because I intend to have it paid off five years out of residency. If I have to continue to live on <50k for a few years while I do that, okay. I've certainly lived on a lot less, so in that sense I feel like I have the edge on somone who may have grown up with a silver spoon in their mouth. Sure there may be some underpriveleged but otherwise qualified kids who shy away fron a medical education because they dont want to be buried in debt, but i'd be willing to bet there are even more who see med school as their golden ticket to an upper middle class lifestyle.

The one area where I do believe low SES applicants may be tragically weeded out is undergrad. Once your in med school, you're in. There is no such promise as a premed, and for kids who have to put themselves through school and support themselves, the costs of school, applications, interviews, not to mention income lost from time spent on auxillary (but necessary) activities like volunteering, unpaid research and other assorted ECs, can be prohibitive.

 

[ToldYouSo]

I've seen this argument but I still don't buy it. As someone from a mid/low SES, I sometimes tend to view med school acceptance as my "golden ticket". I won't be paying off debt til I'm fifty because I intend to have it paid off five years out of residency. If I have to continue to live on <50k for a few years while I do that, okay. I've certainly lived on a lot less, so in that sense I feel like I have the edge on somone who may have grown up with a silver spoon in their mouth. Sure there may be some underpriveleged but otherwise qualified kids who shy away fron a medical education because they dont want to be buried in debt, but i'd be willing to bet there are even more who see med school as their golden ticket to an upper middle class lifestyle.

The one area where I do believe low SES applicants may be tragically weeded out is undergrad. Once your in med school, you're in. There is no such promise as a premed, and for kids who have to put themselves through school and support themselves, the costs of school, applications, interviews, not to mention income lost from time spent on auxillary (but necessary) activities like volunteering, unpaid research and other assorted ECs, can be prohibitive.

As someone applying with the lowest SES classification, I agree with this.

 

[Five0tomed68]

.....the costs of school, applications, interviews, not to mention income lost from time spent on auxillary (but necessary) activities like volunteering, unpaid research and other assorted ECs, can be prohibitive.

This is exactly what I'm saying when i say the system is designed to benefit those "rich kids". Many would also say that the ability to focus on nothing but classes and being able to afford MCAT prep classes and material give a significant advantage as well.

 

[StephanieZ]

This is exactly what I'm saying by saying when i say the system is designed to benefit those "rich kids". Many would also say that the ability to focus on nothing but classes and being able to afford MCAT prep classes and material give a significant advantage as well.

Exaclty. I try not to let it get to me but ECs are where it really hits me hard. I'm sure its not hard to be well rounded, involved and generous with your time when someone else is supporting you. Thats why I'm so glad I decided to take the extra time to find a job in the healthcare field. My work hours ARE application hours. Its still hard to find time for volunteering though

 

[thefritz]

Long story short: people with lower IQs will tend to have children with lower IQs. This will covary with socioeconomic status, since in theory, someone who is less intelligent will have fewer high-paying options available.

I don't agree with this at all. They just aren't the more respected ways to become wealthy.

Union skilled labor: $100k/year +
Police officer ($130k/year + in long island)
Independent constructions contractors: varies wildly. $50k-$300k/year+
Skilled electricians and plumbers: Up to $200k/year
Longshoreman: $100k/year
Deep sea welder: $200k/year
High power line worker: $100k/year
Independent auto mechanic specializing in certain makes with high markup parts (MB, porsche): up to $200k/year.
FedEx/UPS: $60-75k/year

These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Skilled labor is usually not cheap, whether you're an MD or a carpenter. The difference is that the MD gets paid a lot whether he's good or not. In non-protected incomes rackets (i.e., anything outside of medicine), you have to be good at what you do or you don't have customers and are forced to work for peanuts for someone else.

Then there are the, ah, only partially legal ways of making money that pay in cash.

 

[StephanieZ]

Police officer ($130k/year + in long island)

I would really, really like to meet the average Long Island police officer who is making six figures.

 

[Five0tomed68]

I don't agree with this at all. They just aren't the more respected ways to become wealthy.

Police officer ($130k/year + in long island)


These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Skilled labor is usually not cheap, whether you're an MD or a carpenter. The difference is that the MD gets paid a lot whether he's good or not. In non-protected incomes rackets (i.e., anything outside of medicine), you have to be good at what you do or you don't have customers and are forced to work for peanuts for someone else.

Police Officer??? Should I be insulted when you preface this statement with less "respected ways" of earning income. I must agree the motivation and intelligence of some officers leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, ability and performance do not correlate in law enforcement as your post suggests.

I never felt a lack of respect. Even amongst my wife's peer group (she's a physician). There are some individuals (both good and bad) that don't like the police, but the same concept applies for physicians. Usually, people thank me for the work I do and show a lot of appreciation, then they want to ask questions and hear war stories (which I rarely share).

The profession is also relatively hard to get into. My department will sift through about 900 applicants for around 30 positions. That is not counting those that get pre-screened out (bad driving histories, prior DUIs, etc.). Of the 30 hired, usually around 5 or more will no make it through the academy.

@StephanieZ reference the Long Island PD income, a lot of the northeast unionized police departments make good money. In the right department, you could be in the + 100K range in about 7 year. They are especially hard to get into.

 

[thefritz]

I would really, really like to meet the average Long Island police officer who is making six figures.

The guy I knew made 130k for being a patrol officer.

Apparently it's even more now. Add salary + overtime, you're getting close to $200k.

http://longisland.newsday.com/templates/simpleDB/?pid=173

Police officer is not a very respectable job. Most join for the gun and power and are racist. Sounds like you are one of the rare ones who hopefully doesn't abuse the power.

 

[Quizlet04]

I don't agree with this at all. They just aren't the more respected ways to become wealthy.

Union skilled labor: $100k/year +
Police officer ($130k/year + in long island)
Independent constructions contractors: varies wildly. $50k-$300k/year+
Skilled electricians and plumbers: Up to $200k/year
Longshoreman: $100k/year
Deep sea welder: $200k/year
High power line worker: $100k/year
Independent auto mechanic specializing in certain makes with high markup parts (MB, porsche): up to $200k/year.
FedEx/UPS: $60-75k/year

These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Skilled labor is usually not cheap, whether you're an MD or a carpenter. The difference is that the MD gets paid a lot whether he's good or not. In non-protected incomes rackets (i.e., anything outside of medicine), you have to be good at what you do or you don't have customers and are forced to work for peanuts for someone else.

Then there are the, ah, only partially legal ways of making money that pay in cash.

Unions are fading fast, so assuming anything in unionized labor is a good bet is naive.

Skilled workers, in part because of the salaries you cite, are now a glut in many parts of the US. Plus, someone like an auto mechanic, contractor, etc. is very reliant on the wealth of the people around them. If you're living in a smaller town in, say, Iowa, you're not going to make bank when a lot of the town is unemployed and selling their cars or not repairing their homes. I've read of a LOT of unemployed contractors and such who are sitting idle due to a bad economy.

There's also the tendency to hire immigrant laborers, legal or illegal, who are willing to accept less pay. Think about it: who can live on less money?
- A US-born guy who has two children who live in the US. He's paying US-rate taxes, paying for US-price food and supplies, etc.
- A guy from Guatemala who is living in an apartment with 5 other guys and sending his money back to his two children in Guatemala, where the cost of living is a pittance.

 

[Five0tomed68]

The guy I knew made 130k for being a patrol officer.

Apparently it's even more now. Add salary + overtime, you're getting close to $200k.

http://longisland.newsday.com/templates/simpleDB/?pid=173

Police officer is not a very respectable job. Most join for the gun and power and are racist. Sounds like you are one of the rare ones who hopefully doesn't abuse the power.

As I said, some like police others do not. I respect your opinion, though I don't agree with it.. The majority who apply for the reasons you stated would generally get weeded out of the department I work for. It sounds like you had some bad experiences and that sucks.

 

[thefritz]

Unions are fading fast, so assuming anything in unionized labor is a good bet is naive.

Skilled workers, in part because of the salaries you cite, are now a glut in many parts of the US. Plus, someone like an auto mechanic, contractor, etc. is very reliant on the wealth of the people around them. If you're living in a smaller town in, say, Iowa, you're not going to make bank when a lot of the town is unemployed and selling their cars or not repairing their homes. I've read of a LOT of unemployed contractors and such who are sitting idle due to a bad economy.

There's also the tendency to hire immigrant laborers, legal or illegal, who are willing to accept less pay. Think about it: who can live on less money?
- A US-born guy who has two children who live in the US. He's paying US-rate taxes, paying for US-price food and supplies, etc.
- A guy from Guatemala who is living in an apartment with 5 other guys and sending his money back to his two children in Guatemala, where the cost of living is a pittance.

I never said it was a good idea, but my point was that there are plenty of people in the upper class in terms of income (you wouldn't know it by looking at them) that didn't get there through grad school.

Now you know how I feel when I have to hire someone to come and remodel my bathroom, work which I could do myself if I weren't busy with med school, and he charges me $3000 for 3 days of work in cash and scoffs at jobs that pay less than 500, and constantly talks about all of his race cars, last vacation to florida for 2 months, how he can retire now, and can make "300 grand a year, and that's without hustling" Granted, a lot of it is talk, but the fact of the matter is you can't get a half decent skilled contractor in your house for less than 500 a day, and typically it's more like 750-1000. That's good money for someone who maybe graduated high school when you think about what resident physicians, with 10 years of post high school education earn on a per hour basis.

The posts from college kids about having to chose between med, law, or finance amuse me. They don't understand that you can get wealthy doing just about anything if you're good.

Oh, and I can't believe I forgot one of the best examples: Car salesman. If you're personable, talk a lot, and always happy, you can do really well. Some of them can barely make a living. Others have the 'gift' and can pull in 20k a month at an MB dealer, more in high volume places like socal and florida. They stay in the biz, work their way up, are managing a dealership in 10-20 years making up to 7 figures. No college required.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Wow. This thread took an unexpected turn.

 

[AdamAustin]

It may be true in some cases, where only rich applicant got through medical examination, but there are existence of some Govt. based medical school too, which helps the needy to study medical through scholarships & do well in future & sometimes even if the scholarships are not offered, the student are allowed to study through low rate of interest.

 

[Mr Avante]

 

[FiremedicMike]

Read it again, I misunderstood.

 

[Gauss44]

Regarding the title, yes.

What would you do if you:

1. Couldn't afford a computer? (All CBT MCAT tests would likely be unavailable.)
2. Couldn't afford to live without roommates? (You would lack peace and quiet for studying/sleeping.)
3. Had to work while taking classes, even during finals? Or had to work 2 full time jobs? (You would have much less time to study and less time to socialize with classmates. If you worked 2 jobs, had kids, and had a learning disability that costs additional time, you would have practically no time.) There's no law saying that poor people can't have other disadvantages too!
4. Couldn't afford MCAT study books, pens, paper, etc.?
5. Had to deal with disruptions regarding past due bills and rent?
6. Couldn't afford to eat properly? (...And your studying/sleeping was impacted.)
7. Couldn't afford treatment for learning disabilities psychological issues, medical problems, etc. impacting studying?
8. Couldn't afford any tutoring or help of any kind?
9. Couldn't afford interview clothes?
10. Couldn't afford a hair cut, dental work, or basic hygiene products?
11. Couldn't afford a safe and quiet place to study? (Places open to homeless people are generally noisy and constantly have bad colds or flus going around, even in the summertime. Sometimes homeless people carry fleas as well, so if you are next to one of these poor people for any reason, including because you are one of them, you will get bitten too. Homeless shelters generally close during the daytime. You also have to have a thick skin as homeless people are treated as nuisances, and are subject to abuse because they are seen as defenseless. To comment on the domino effect one more time, homeless people feel vulnerable when things like SARs goes around, and probably often get psychological problems from that like increased anxiety and ptsd. ...And are subject to crazy behavior of other homeless people, such as drug abusers.)
12. Poor people often have no family or come from very poor families, and often lack well-to-do friends or acquaintances who might be of help.

All of this adds up to wealthy people having a better chance.

 

[Quizlet04]

I never said it was a good idea, but my point was that there are plenty of people in the upper class in terms of income (you wouldn't know it by looking at them) that didn't get there through grad school.

Plenty according to whom? The one or two people you met who are making good money thanks to smart contracting? Or the masses of people living in trailer parks on disability because the factories shut down?

The posts from college kids about having to chose between med, law, or finance amuse me. They don't understand that you can get wealthy doing just about anything if you're good.

If you're good and lucky and there isn't a glut in your field. I know a lot of good people who are unemployed because they're too old, in the wrong part of the country, or bad at selling themselves.

Just because something can happen doesn't mean it happens frequently.

 

[circulus vitios]

I don't agree with this at all. They just aren't the more respected ways to become wealthy.

Union skilled labor: $100k/year +
Police officer ($130k/year + in long island)
Independent constructions contractors: varies wildly. $50k-$300k/year+
Skilled electricians and plumbers: Up to $200k/year
Longshoreman: $100k/year
Deep sea welder: $200k/year
High power line worker: $100k/year
Independent auto mechanic specializing in certain makes with high markup parts (MB, porsche): up to $200k/year.
FedEx/UPS: $60-75k/year

These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Skilled labor is usually not cheap, whether you're an MD or a carpenter. The difference is that the MD gets paid a lot whether he's good or not. In non-protected incomes rackets (i.e., anything outside of medicine), you have to be good at what you do or you don't have customers and are forced to work for peanuts for someone else.

Then there are the, ah, only partially legal ways of making money that pay in cash.

"Skilled union labor" is too vague.
NYPD starts off at $35-40k/year.
Construction contractors only make money when they have work.
Average electricians and plumbers make $25/hour, according to BLS.
Longshoreman, good luck getting that job without family ties.
Deep sea welding requires intense training and takes an incredible toll on your body.
Power line workers, again, good luck getting that job.
Independent mechanics make jack ****. Dealership mechanics might clear $80k/year if they're fast workers.

 

[Bea5T]

Regarding the title, yes.

What would you do if you:

1. Couldn't afford a computer? (All CBT MCAT tests would likely be unavailable.)
2. Couldn't afford to live without roommates? (You would lack peace and quiet for studying/sleeping.)
3. Had to work while taking classes, even during finals? Or had to work 2 full time jobs? (You would have much less time to study and less time to socialize with classmates. If you worked 2 jobs, had kids, and had a learning disability that costs additional time, you would have practically no time.) There's no law saying that poor people can't have other disadvantages too!
4. Couldn't afford MCAT study books, pens, paper, etc.?
5. Had to deal with disruptions regarding past due bills and rent?
6. Couldn't afford to eat properly? (...And your studying/sleeping was impacted.)
7. Couldn't afford treatment for learning disabilities psychological issues, medical problems, etc. impacting studying?
8. Couldn't afford any tutoring or help of any kind?
9. Couldn't afford interview clothes?
10. Couldn't afford a hair cut, dental work, or basic hygiene products?
11. Couldn't afford a safe and quiet place to study? (Places open to homeless people are generally noisy and constantly have bad colds or flus going around, even in the summertime. Sometimes homeless people carry fleas as well, so if you are next to one of these poor people for any reason, including because you are one of them, you will get bitten too. Homeless shelters generally close during the daytime. You also have to have a thick skin as homeless people are treated as nuisances, and are subject to abuse because they are seen as defenseless. To comment on the domino effect one more time, homeless people feel vulnerable when things like SARs goes around, and probably often get psychological problems from that like increased anxiety and ptsd. ...And are subject to crazy behavior of other homeless people, such as drug abusers.)
12. Poor people often have no family or come from very poor families, and often lack well-to-do friends or acquaintances who might be of help.

All of this adds up to wealthy people having a better chance.

By this logic every job favors rich/wealthy people, no? And you're definitely taking your liberties when discussing what "poor" really is. That is not poor, that's pretty much living in poverty.

 

[Gauss44]

According to Richard Kahlenberg, colleges do prefer wealthy applicants. He says, that's why affirmative action is based solely on race and not on class (or race and class). Article here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113669/richard-kahlenberg-class-based-affirmative-action-prophet

 

[sockit]

.

 

[Courtjester8]

With research, clinical experience, and volunteering all typically being unpaid and time consuming activities, my take on this topic is that it is the system and expectations for applicants that favor the upper class more than anything. Medical schools themselves are just looking for the best and brightest.

About the MSAR data showing large amounts of aid, this may be because most schools see medical students as independent from their parents after undergrad. They use parental financial data only as a means to scale the aid. My aid package covers over 2/3 of my tuition and fees and I will likely get more next year.

 

[Gauss44]

In some cases, rich applicants are directly and unashamedly preferred. There's a story around here about a son of a CEO who was a C student and wanted a shot at the Ivy Leagues. So, his dad offered to donate money to the school and provide an internship to the school's students if they would accept his son. The ivy league school agreed. The son flunked out (or transferred, can't remember which). The school kept the money and the internship is still there today.

 

[RNtoMD4sure]

First off a doctors life is not what many of you think. There are much better and easier ways to help your community and give back.

Don't get hung up on wanting to be a doctor. Truly go shadow some doctors, but not for one day. Do it for several weekends 12 hour shifts, then you will see.

Some like it. I don't blame them.

But yes, the financial portion helps the most from it all because it allows for better undergraduate prep and mcat prep material etc... and the same hours spent working as a poor kid are instead spent by a rich kid studying. One cannot just make up the lost time. There is no way, mathematically.

Life is unfair, but you have to find paths that work for you. I bet a rich kid can't figure out a path through handwork to become a doctor if he/she became poor in the same lifetime because of some tragedy. The rich kid does not have external factors inducing him/her to push their limitations and become creative. People become laxed and undisciplined.

In the end Life strives to survive. Put a bacteria with a flagella in a dish and some peroxide. The bacteria will use its flagella to get away from the peroxide.

You will all find a way. Med school education by the way is a joke with disjoints and gaps. USMLE if you study the material on your own can be understood. Then you will know what doctors know and then they forget it all anyway LOL

Again, you will find your place as many of the posts before this I read, the posters have some real heart and soul. You all will do just fine

 

[NonTradJp]

Everything favors those that are wealthy or from wealthier backgrounds even if they themselves cannot touch the money. The only exceptions are situations where the wealthy individual is discriminated against directly IMO.

Given that...do the best with what you have.

In reply to the comment about only rich kids can do hundreds of hours because the rest has family to raise and need to work. I came from an impoverished background and still did hundreds of hours of volunteering and shadowing while raising a family and working and taking night classes. I'm proud of it. But I'm far from unique. In fact there are so many hard working poor people all over that I'm pretty typical in the real world.