- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,148
- Reaction score
- 3
The amount of slots taken up by in staters is greater than the amount of slots taken up by any other group. So, do you resent in staters because they are given preference at their state schools?
MarzH05 said:The amount of slots taken up by in staters is greater than the amount of slots taken up by any other group. So, do you resent in staters because they are given preference at their state schools?
BrettBatchelor said:I know this is in response to the URM thread but if you want me to explain let me know.
BrettBatchelor said:Well considering how state schools are funded largely by tax dollars, many legislative bodies have mandated that those funds should go to educating X% of their own state. They will also be more likely to stay in state as a physician as well. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I'll end it there as there isn't enough character space to continue on about tax dollar use.
MarzH05 said:You have yet to convince me that it is different. I think you can make the same argument of URM, instead inserting the appropriate words.
NJDUDE said:How does his statement apply to URMs? Are they paying special taxes to special URM schools!? Please don't bring the issue of URMs where it doesn't belong. One active thread about the topic is enough.
MarzH05 said:I really wanted to know if SDN were just resentful people in general.
MarzH05 said:I was not trying to just turn it into an URM thread. I really wanted to know if SDN were just resentful people in general. So vote, and move on. It will only turn into a URM thread if you let it, please dont.
yourmom25 said:an in-stater is most likely to practice within the state when they are done with their residency. therefore, paying to educate these in-staters will help the state itself by supplying it with physicians.
this is not the same as URMs because a) a URM does not necessarily get cheaper tuition, b) is not necessarily going to remain in the state and serve that state's population, and c) in-state status involves money, not race.
holy crap dude, stop being so defensive. the question at hand is "do i resent in-staters?" i explained why i thought in-staters should receive "preferential" treatment. i understand that i didn't clearly state it but it was implied in my argument.MarzH05 said:Please keep your responses limited to the question at hand. Like I said, I do not want to make this a URM thread. Whether you think it is applicable is besides the point. I know I will come up with my own conclusions about the data, and you your own. But do not derail the thread.
I realize you're playing off of the URM thread, but we really don't need this.MarzH05 said:Well I just thought it was pretty much the same situation as the URM situation. So I wanted to find out whether it is just the nature of premeds on SDN to be resentful, or whether it is actually racially based.