-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Does living in an affluent zip code hurt your chances for admission?
Started by Heyigotnoclue
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
Only if you blow all the advantages imparted by affluence.
Approximately 1/3 to half of my 200+ class didn’t have to take out student loans or had at least one parent who was a physician
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
No. I review a gazillion files of interviewees.
Do you really think we have the time or interest to look up the average wealth of each zip code?
And then even care??.??
No. This is basically far-right propaganda at this point. The overwhelming majority of doctors come from upper-middle class and upper class families.
D
deleted1191767
What kind of a question is this??? It definitely helps. More access to connections, resources, higher quality of life means you have more mental energy to focus on studies, "cultural capital". As other commenters have said, the majority of doctors come from wealthy families.
I live in a supposedly high income zip code. I have none of those advantages. None. We have to stop making assumptions and hurt people based on them.
I don’t see it as a joke . There is so much hatred for people who happened to work hard and save up a bit. His concern is a valid one.
D
deleted1191767
Nearly 25 percent of all medical students come from the top five percent of household incomes.
Basically, if you wanted the highest chance of getting into med school, you should live in a wealthy area (with a wealthy family!) as early as possible in life. Of course there are exceptions as some have pointed out, but by and large, wealth confers a measurable advantage.
Basically, if you wanted the highest chance of getting into med school, you should live in a wealthy area (with a wealthy family!) as early as possible in life. Of course there are exceptions as some have pointed out, but by and large, wealth confers a measurable advantage.
So, what? Do medical schools give seats to those people because of their family income? Why should it matter? Are we supposed to hate them and deny medical seats because they are from wealthy families? Is being wealthy a crime? How about focusing on their GPA, MCAT, extracurriculars etc instead of hating them just because their parents worked hard ? Aren’t we all trying to become wealthy?
There’s nothing wrong with it. I agree that it should be based on meritocracy. But don’t pretend that you don’t have a leg up being in a high income zip code over those from low income backgrounds. It’s ok to acknowledge your privilege.
This is different from what the OP is asking.
If you’re asking if we subtract points or something because of income or where you live, that’s not the case (at least for every school I’ve ever heard of)
It matters a little just because most of these people tend to not be super worried about serving the underserved, and they also tend to not understand their non-affluent patients very well.
Of course I’m painting with a broad brush here, some people from wealthy families probably do end up doing family medicine in an FQHC in rural Idaho.
Ideally the population of physicians would be similar to the patients they serve/meet the current needs, but for lots of common sense reasons this is not (and probably never will be) the case.
Also, just to comment on your last point: if wealth was the primary goal, I think medicine in 2025 is a terrible way to approach that. I’d also argue that wealth as a goal is a recipe for unhappiness anyway. I know a lot of doctors who love life who are “lower income” compared to some miserable specialists.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Answering the question: no.
Ugh, I know. Can you imagine, the poor, aspiring to become doctors? They are coming here, eating the dogs and cats, and now they're taking all of the good jobs away from us... They should really make medical school more exclusionary since we're the only people whose effort actually counts for something.
We should have a test that only rich people can pass and make sure that we're sizing applicants up on interview so that we don't accidentally fraternize with people who have different experiences than us. No, no, wait—what if we just look to the rich people who are already doctors and just fill our schools with their kids, whether or not they actually want to become doctors or show any aptitude for it?
It's just not fair. I'm so tired of all of this vitriol being flung at me and my people. It's oppressive.
I don’t understand the relevance of your first paragraph. I believe that you are hinting at illegal immigration. I don’t think any other country in the entire planet have an immigration path that doesn’t require visas. I don’t understand why people expect America to be different. No one ever explained that. Follow the laws. Do not encourage illegal behavior.
Ugh, I know. Can you imagine, the poor, aspiring to become doctors? They are coming here, eating the dogs and cats, and now they're taking all of the good jobs away from us... They should really make medical school more exclusionary since we're the only people whose effort actually counts for something.
We should have a test that only rich people can pass and make sure that we're sizing applicants up on interview so that we don't accidentally fraternize with people who have different experiences than us. No, no, wait—what if we just look to the rich people who are already doctors and just fill our schools with their kids, whether or not they actually want to become doctors or show any aptitude for it?
It's just not fair. I'm so tired of all of this vitriol being flung at me and my people. It's oppressive.
You are welcome to design a standardized test that the children of rich people cannot pass. No problem. As long as the test is same for everyone and everyone is treated fairly without any discrimination, they will be fine.
Children of physicians are entitled to have ambitions and aspirations too. It is not a crime. You can’t hate them just because their parents happen to be doctors. When you become a doctor, are you going to have same attitude towards your children? I bet not. You will sing a different tune.
Don’t make assumptions about physician children’s aptitude or doubt their passion to become doctors and make arguments based on that. You are not some God that know about everything. Jealousy is not good.
Do not confuse acknowledging the privilege with hating the person. Nobody is saying that wealthy or legacy applicants are less deserving, but it is an absolute truth that they have an advantage.
People with LM 64 receive interviews from UCSF and UCLA. Isn’t it a previlege?
Those applicants likely have a life story that displays competency in more areas than just standardized testing. Look back at the source correlating wealth with MCAT scores if you disagree.
Wealth has got nothing to do with your score. It is like body weight, skin color having correlation with your mcat score. There is khan academy, countless top quality YouTube channels that are free. Jack Westin fully free. Kaplan books cost only $25 in eBay. AAMC bundle is free for low income people. You don’t need anything more than that . Uworld costs only $300. But iPhone costs $1000. There are plenty of poorest Asian American citizens and people from third world countries score 520+. There are plenty of students from rich families couldn’t break 500. If you are looking for excuses, you will find plenty.
My point is that don’t hate others and demand them be sympathetic towards you. Love others and they will love you back.
Satire does not travel well over the electrons
I received an interview from UCLA with an LM 64 because I worked in medicine for almost 20,000 hours, was a NASA intern (and published under their research team), and write health and education policy at the state level while managing a budget of over $150M. I navigated homelessness and leveraged social programs at great personal cost to push myself into rooms that actively resisted me. And when given the opportunity to compete, I outworked everyone.
I earned it. I can't say the same for you and the advantages you inherited. Whether your parents worked hard or not is irrelevant, the meritocracy doesn't work if merit can be accumulated over generations.
Your density betrays you. Someday you'll look back on these bigoted, elitist, and xenophobic comments and (I hope) feel a modicum of embarrassment and shame. For now, though, it doesn't seem like you even understand what you're saying, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
As my mother, Taylor Swift, says, "I stare directly at the Sun, but never in the mirror." If your retinas ever recover, consider one of those $25 Kaplan CARS titles on eBay. Perhaps one of my favorites, A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.
Last edited:
I think that most medical schools try to create student bodies that are representative of the entire patient population. Sure, it might appear that (sometimes) people with “lower stats” get looks over people with “higher stats”, BUT their distance traveled is what matters.
Coming from nothing and being dirt poor is an experience that changes your entire outlook on life. It changes how you view others, and for me, it changes how I view the position I’m in today. I’m very fortunate to be applying to medical school and it motivates me to use that privilege to care for others who come from the same place as me. I believe that that’s more valuable to a medical school who is trying to lessen America’s fracturing health system.
My point is, you can come from money, and a majority of medical students already do come from middle-upper class families, but you shouldn’t vent your frustration that you might be getting passed up because you’re rich. That’s not even a real crutch.
Have some gratitude my friend, it will take you far.
I apologize for making a pitch here for Becoming a Student Doctor, but the longest topic in the course focuses on "Academic Competencies." It is covered to not discuss the specific science topics one should know as an entering student. Instead it focuses on other sociological issues regarding science/math and associations with "being smart." This includes topics on how resources/systems, health/disability (both associated with zip codes), gender, and having a "well-rounded education" help you develop critical thinking insights to separate misinformation from fact. (And it delves into mentoring/coaching and artificial intelligence.)
Overcoming great obstacles helps. Coming from an affluent zip code changes nothing. No one on the adcom is looking up zip codes. If this actually concerns you, get a PO box. They have a LOT to deal with. Imagine pretending to read 4 or 5 personal statements/secondary essays from 25k applicants. That alone would be like 2 full time employees. How many of these schools does anyone ACTUALLY believe reads 125k+ essays? That would be torture.
Even if we were looking at a zip code, it only tells us the big picture. I recall seeing that an applicant was from a very, very wealthy suburb and thinking... oh, let's see what this applicant has done given their place in society.... turned out, as the applicant described in an essay, the family home was a rental apartment above the garage on a large estate. The parents had a small retail business in town and worked 6 days a week. You can't make assumptions based on zip code.
As someone who grew up in the low to middle class end of one of the most affluent zip codes in the country, your perception of persecution is a result of your own insecurity and fears not because there is some reality where applicants from rich zip codes are being left in the dust. If anything it's quite the contrary.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Alright I'm gonna say what everyone else is thinking from the last DEI post this guy took belt to ass in that obviously did not make him rethink his values or opinions. You are not fit to be a physician with this current mindset. If you cannot assimilate new information and grow as a person, you will harm your future patients. You will add to growing health disparities in the world and will continue to feed into false narratives that current administrations are running with. This is not meant as an attack, but a call for you to change the lens in which you view the world as you will be able to make such a great impact on it with the education you are receiving. For the sake of your future patients, I hope you reflect and try to learn more about perspectives different than your own. Coming from someone who also shared similar sentiment to you prior to experiencing the real world.
We already had in depth conversations with this guy in another thread where he made it exceptionally clear his stances are rooted in oppression and injustice. That is where these comments are coming from and you missed the point. This is not about silencing someone for disagreeing on immigration or admissions policy, it is about recognizing when another student is undermining other applicants’ accomplishments with lower scores or dismissing health equity entirely.
These are not just differences of opinion or neutral stances in the world we live in today where people are fighting for their rights to exist. These opinions actively dismiss the lives of patients and communities that rely on physicians to have their best interests at heart. I saw what happens when those same people are in charge of the health of their community. You think the people that covered up the Flint Water Crisis were just offering another perspective? That does impact one’s fitness to practice medicine.
Imagine being a person who thinks the role of physician is value-neutral. We literally have documented competencies that stretch us far, far beyond academics. We have expectations to participate in social justice causes and to be service-oriented. Our admissions testing teaches us about conflict theory and the bevy of negative psychological consequences of poverty. We learn about intersectionality and how disadvantage compounds. I have seen exasperated admissions deans roll their eyes back in euphoria at the mere mention of "social determinants of health."
The girlies that get it, get it. The ones that don't may want to consider unschooling. It kind of sounds like they wouldn't be interested in a medical school curriculum anyway.
The girlies that get it, get it. The ones that don't may want to consider unschooling. It kind of sounds like they wouldn't be interested in a medical school curriculum anyway.
AnatomyAndAnonymity
TMDSAS Wrangler
Think of it this way. In nature, a seed from a specific plant happens to find itself planted in nutrient-rich soil with ideal sunlight and access to water. Another seed from the same plant happens to be planted in a much less ideal area, with poor soil, little light, and limited water. If you had to place a bet on which plant would be more likely to thrive, you would likely pick the first one, because it has easy access to the resources it needs to grow. This doesn't necessarily guarantee growth, but reduces the plant's struggle. Now, if the plant in poor conditions managed to grow to the same size as the plant in ideal conditions, would that not say something about its resilience? In order to thrive, the plant in poor conditions would need to stretch its roots in search of nutrients and water, and contort its stem in search of as much sunlight as possible. Several studies have shown that income correlates with MCAT score, and it seems pretty straightforward that an individual who could focus on studying without needing to work full time to support themselves or their family and could afford the best MCAT prep would be more likely to excel than an individual facing those stressors.
However, I don't think individuals from affluent zip codes would be disadvantaged simply because of where they live.
I think it says everything we need to hear that the other individual went straight to complaining about people with low stats having interview invites at good programs to show he doesn't think they deserve to be there and are a direct threat to what they consider "worthy applicants". I am not an adcom but have worked in admissions for PhD programs and have suffered through countless applicants thinking they are better than others without even knowing the other applicants' stories.
This person may have enough to be accepted somewhere. It is a hard truth that the political spectrum of physicians and "social elites" is broad. We have to work with them too. There are numerous accounts of such student opinions being prevalent in many medical schools. It is an interesting argument we have about "philosophical diversity," and I expect it to be discussed at interviews.
There are boundaries...right? Expressing thinly veiled hate speech is a breach of professionalism by any standard. After so many times, I think it escalates to/approximates harassment.
Call me problematic, but I expect to feel validated in my environment and feel safe in my identity as a student. I think it is a reasonable expectation to be protected from that kind of discourse. Aside from the fact that many of the claims made are factually incorrect, it would seem to run contrary to just about every medical school's mission and stated values.
I know schools are well-aware that not each and every one of their applicants are John the Baptist, but I don't think any of us are expecting to have to rub elbows with RFK.
There are many disciples of RFKJr that you will likely rub elbows with.
All we can do is get our facts right and frame them around stories.
From the introduction of Becoming a Student Doctor, a British example:
Before commenting on anyone’s comment and spewing venom, you have to read the original comment that was responded to, because the context is very important. Often, the nature of a reply is determined by the original comment or question.
Your personal attack only shows your frustration that you don’t have any real answers to refute what I have said. Your reply shows that you only preach others to “reflect and learn more about perspectives different than your own “, but don’t follow it yourself.
Don’t worry about me. I am doing just fine.
I had the full context and no, it does not make you look any better. Nor do any of your other posts.
You were begging the last discussion to be closed by mods and never came up with a single counterpoint the last time. To your other point, I did reflect as I was very similar to you prior to having any real world experience, which is why I and adcoms feel it is so crucial to have for applicants. You previously stated you thought extracurriculars for serving underserved groups is a waste of time and schools should focus solely on MCAT, which could not be farther from the truth. That alone is a huge red flag. Why are you pursuing a career in service to other people if you think that is a waste of time?
I am not worried about you and wish you the best, but I would not want you treating me, my children, or my community.
I'm struggling to follow. What you are introducing as an entire discipline within medicine is being overtly denied wholesale. Accommodating that denial is fundamentally incompatible with reality.
On occasion that denial extends into disparagement and a suboptimal learning environment for everyone, which is not only acutely damaging to the target of hostility, but for everyone present. At that point, I would expect a hypothetical school administration to step in. Basic respect and civility is not a nice-to-have, it's non-negotiable.
It may be a value judgment in itself, but I agree with @PickaGodnPray that the practice of medicine is fundamentally incompatible with certain beliefs. After all, believing in a certain common dignity in all human beings is sort of sine qua non to practicing medicine. I hear you in recognizing that people differ in opinion, but I think we have a duty to identify and highlight to others why they are wrong...and why it is dangerous, for everyone.
Silence and tolerance is looking more and more like normalization through a vantage I'm hoping is not common in medicine.
I hear what you’re saying, and if we’re in the same mind bubble then I think I can infer which beliefs seem incompatible the practice of medicine. I agree with some of that because it seems counterintuitive.
However a lot of people in healthcare, not just some physicians, hold certain beliefs that conflict with yours and mine. It’s not always said out loud, and I have certainly made fun of our current president and didn’t know my crowd of nurses (awkward), but you still have to work with them.
I suppose my rule of thumb in the future is, if it doesn’t harm patient care or put a blemish on the professionalism/sanctity of the physician-patient alliance, then all I can do is focus on being the best physician I can be. Even if it is the right thing to want to change their mind, it is much much much harder than it seems.
The adcoms here including myself have already stated that they are not. There's no way of knowing what zip codes are affluent areas.
On the AACOMAS primary application form, I can see if somebody's parents are a doctor. This does not add or subtract to the person's application.
Thus, I suggest you all chill.
I'm not really talking about political preferences here, it goes beyond that.
Being called a DEI hire in a professional environment is insulting, untrue, and by definition, prejudicial. It's saying there could not possibly be some reason to find someone of [whatever immutable characteristic] worthy of some station; in this case, to pursue medicine.
This is just layer upon layer of abstraction so we're a few degrees removed, but the argument is still fundamentally the same. I would expect for a school to step in if a student was vocalizing that they didn't think women are cognitively capable of pursuing medicine because God says they need to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Just because identity has been politicized does not mean denigrating others' identities should be tolerated as "academic freedom."
To put it mildly, I know these people are among us and may not always be forthright with their views. But when they are, I think it's reasonable to defend oneself and insist on fairness within the context of that experience in whatever way is appropriate. If it's in a classroom, I expect a professor to step in; if it's on rotation, the attending; and so on.
In this case, I'm not asking for this discussion in particular to be moderated, I'm looking for validation that this expectation is not bizarre. Not getting clear evidence from schools in that direction would be highly concerning.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I didn’t ask for your certificate or approval. Come down to the ground. Send me direct message, I will give you appropriate response. This is not the forum for that.
AnatomyAndAnonymity
TMDSAS Wrangler
If an adcom were to hear someone expressing similar views about disadvantaged applicants, would it be viewed negatively due to lack of empathy? Or does the concept of philosophical diversity require tolerance of such a perspective? Everyone has a fundamental right to their beliefs, but I wonder where the line would be drawn as to which beliefs will likely have a negative impact on patient care. Do you have any insight?
AnatomyAndAnonymity
TMDSAS Wrangler
I did see the above comments, I just threw it in to stay plausibly on-topic. I'm sure OP didn't expect to open a hornet's nest, but I'm sure they appreciated your insight on their question. Thank you for being an accessible, honest resource!
Depends upon where it's being expressed.
In an interview setting, throwing shade on people is taken as a sign of unprofessional behavior (and cluelessness) and would lead to a rejection.
D
deleted1191256
It has everything to do with your score! There’s a reason standardized tests are tied to socioeconomic status. Think about how access to resources. Think about how not having resources for a long time can make you fall behind. Poorer people since childhood could not afford tutoring, after school programs, or even treating their disabilities(or even getting accommodations). This effect is even more prevalent in college.
No, but that’s a terrible comparison. One is a $350 access code to question bank(not the full prep course) which lasts ONLY 3 months while the other is necessity(most poor folk don’t even get iPhones for that much btw). I know this may be hard to believe, but not everyone has that kind of money to drop on an online learning platform or even anything beyond a necessity like a monthly food budget. Not everyone has reliable WiFi. Not everyone has a reliable device to study comfortably at home. Free resources only take you so far.
You’re using outliers here to justify that poor people just need to suck it up. I can’t tell you why a rich person isn’t scoring high but I can tell you it certainly isn’t from a lack of resources. Rich folk can get private MCAT tutors, prep courses like blueprint, and more without worrying about cost.
I know you’ve probably been thankful for the food in on your table and the roof over your head, but please try to appreciate the fact you have grown up with privileges many of never had.
Sincerely,
SDN’s disabled pauper
- Status
