Doesn't affirmative action enhance stereotypes in admissions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ratman7
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The hyperacheivers who rail against URM admissions love to trot out the "wealthy African-American" as an example of why URM admissions is not relevant. None of my African-American students ever came from wealthy families, and even if they did, the road they traveled is still worth considering, simply because of the flaws in our society. If anyone disagrees with this, just ask the people of Ferguson, MO, who city government treated essentially like they were on a plantation.

Wow, there's no winning with this crowd. Think generally. Generally, there is less URM doctors because of access. Read a book or something. These thoughts have all been worked out before. That's why there is a system in place.
 
1. When should we stop providing advantages for people with certain skin colors? Seriously, I want to hear a stopping point that is capable of being measured (e.g. don't tell me "when everyone treats everyone equally!!!!1"). Anyone want to give this one a shot?

In the context of medical education, when those groups are better represented in the physician population

2. It's clear that some patients prefer to go to doctors with the same skin color, and, according to the tones of these threads, almost everyone (excluding myself and a few other brave souls) seem to not have a problem thinking the patient has a right to choose their doctor based on their skin color. Why stop at physicians?

It's not that every patient should pick a doctor based on their color. It's that there are benefits to having a diverse physician workforce, for example, if a native chinese/mexican/[insert minority] patient, having a corresponding physician of the same background+native tongue work with the patient is beneficial over just having a translator.
 
In the context of medical education, when those groups are better represented in the physician population
So you want the # of physicians of every race to match the US demographics? If not, specify what you mean by "better represented" and give an objective answer.

It's not that every patient should pick a doctor based on their color. It's that there are benefits to having a diverse physician workforce, for example, if a native chinese/mexican/[insert minority] patient, having a corresponding physician of the same background+native tongue work with the patient is beneficial over just having a translator.

I never said every patient should pick a doctor based on their skin color, I'm following y'alls logic and saying that every patient should have the option of doing this. It's clear that some patients think they need people who come from similar cultures / look like them / etc... to make themselves feel more comfortable. We're designing entire systems now based on the subjective feelings of individuals, which quite frankly is setting ourselves up for failure. How can you argue with someone's subjective "feelings?" You can't.

I understand the need for diversity for technical purposes (e.g. your translation example) but honestly this goes far beyond technical needs. Furthermore, language barriers (and the need for translators) and other language-related problems will continue to decline in healthcare due to rapid technological advances. This isn't about that, it's about people demanding things based on how they feel. If I say I'm more comfortable with a (insert race) teacher/pizzadeliveryboy / doctor, who the **** are you to tell me I'm wrong?
 
Last edited:
So you want the # of physicians of every race to match the US demographics? If not, specify what you mean by "better represented" and give an objective answer.

African americans are about 13% of the population but represent only 3% of physicians. Hispanics are only 2.8% of the physician population (17% of US population). Ideally, URM recruitment would continue until some amount of parity is achieved between these demographics, in the physician and patient population. At the moment, that is clearly not the case

https://www.aamc.org/download/87306/data/physiciandiversityfacts.pdf
 
African americans are about 13% of the population but represent only 3% of physicians. Hispanics are only 2.8% of the physician population (17% of US population). Ideally, URM recruitment would continue until some amount of parity is achieved between these demographics, in the physician and patient population. At the moment, that is clearly not the case

https://www.aamc.org/download/87306/data/physiciandiversityfacts.pdf
Thanks for the statistics, a simple "yes" would have sufficed.

Now that we've established that you think we should match the physician demographics with the American demographics, what do we do about other areas of life? Should other jobs also strive toward this strict statistical equality? Should all other jobs want this, or only those that serve the public? What about schools? What about private institutions? What about groups that entertain? What about sports? When does this logic stop?
 
last I checked, those other jobs didn't require a basic level of trust, communication, and confidentiality. a better comparison would be lawyers, and I have no idea how law schools approach this subject.
So only jobs that require some type of meaningful interaction/communication between two people in order to preserve things like trust and confidentiality should be regulated in this way? So diversity in and of itself is not good? Or, at least not good enough to justify discrimination?
 
So only jobs that require some type of meaningful interaction/communication between two people in order to preserve things like trust and confidentiality should be regulated in this way? So diversity in and of itself is not good? Or, at least not good enough to justify discrimination?

lol you are just grasping at straws now.
 
No, serious question. I'm trying to understand this twisted logic.
 
Thanks for the statistics, a simple "yes" would have sufficed.

Now that we've established that you think we should match the physician demographics with the American demographics, what do we do about other areas of life? Should other jobs also strive toward this strict statistical equality? Should all other jobs want this, or only those that serve the public? What about schools? What about private institutions? What about groups that entertain? What about sports? When does this logic stop?

Are other jobs (waiter, pizza delivery boy etc.) as important to a person's well being as a physician? Do these jobs require the same skills, talents, and education? Is there a shortage of black/hispanic waiters/delivery boys? Is there peer reviewed evidence that suggests that black/hispanic delivery boys will be better at doing their job when serving their own races?

I could possibly see your argument working for teachers - but is there a shortage of minority teachers? And do the aforementioned conditions apply to a teaching career?

Flat out, it is not "subjective" feelings - there is evidence that suggests URM physicians do serve URM communities and their outcomes tend to be better - prominently in a primary care setting. You will not find a universal answer to this - there is a lot of context and nuance involved in AA in the medical world. You cannot create a sweeping generalization for every career out there. If that's what you are looking for, you will not find it.

But I expect to see you continue with the remedial straw-man arguments.
 
I read a piece today from one of my friend's school newsletter and saw this about admissions (to undergraduate/graduate schools) and thought that it applies to medical school admissions as well. What are your reactions?

(note: "I" does not refer to me; it refers to the author of the article in the newsletter; abbreviations were used)

[common abbreviations/jargon used by me, however]

text:

With this whole, "I'm a URM" therefore "I am judged more leniently than you" view that exists in some graduate school admissions, it looks as if the URM's have an unfair advantage over those who have the same but are ORM. I agree, the whole stereotypes in the past and unfair judgement from earlier in history on was wrong, but giving them their own category and grading them differently in the admissions process is unfair.

Instead of further enhancing their URM status, why don't adcoms just combine the entire pool of applicants and select the best ones, regardless of majority or minority. Quite honestly, I would want the best [doctors] to enter the field and couldn't care less about whether they are URM or ORM.

Making up for past discrimination isn't fair in the present time, and the best thing to do now is to be blind to those statuses now and not discriminate going forward. I don't get why admissions still uses affirmative action, says they want to end discrimination, but still blatantly uses it.


I see where you're coming from and used to think similarly. The truth of the matter is, this issue stops bothering you once you get in, but until then, lots of people use it irrationally as a source f frustration for their lack of success. There are two reasons for the URM leniency.

1. Economic disadvantage is clearly associated with blacks in many unfortunate situations.

So then...why can't we just go by economic standing?

2.
A. "To have someone like you on the team": It's nice to have a diverse class. People overlook it, but I think African Americans bring their own culture to medicine just like every single group. As an Asian Indian, there's no denying that there's a sense of likeliness shared by many Indians. Many (but not all) of us have parents with high expectations, have experienced some level of feeling different at any early age (whether it be good or bad), and are bilingual with an entire cuisine that gets served to us by our parents on a daily basis. I have close friends who are Arabic and they say there's a similar bond there. As such, I'm sure Hispanics and African Americans growing up in the 90's and 00's share some things only they can relate to one another about. Therefore, ensuring there's at least a few black and hispanic Americans in medicine would probably benefit future prospective similar applicants. I'm sure there are aspects of their culture that are valuable to the whole. I won't pretend to know much about the culture so I won't say more about that.


Representing their communities: LizzyM says this whenever people bring this up but something that's nice is that it's been shown in multiple studies that people are more likely to serve the communities they grew up in (or something like that, I may be saying it wrong). By that token, it's a good idea to not completely cripple their potential in medicine.


C. But...what about those evil lazy middle/upper class minorities who plot to take the seats of the hardworking by cheating the system and exploiting raw advantage?

Well...if these people exist, their plan isn't working is it? In my medical school African American's (for example) represent 1-2% of the incoming class while im sure they're WAY more prevalent than that in the community. If this was such a problem, we would actually see a lot more minorities actually in medical school shouldn't we...but we don't.

I think it's very easy as high strung pre-med to blame minorities to give yourself an excuse(I'll shamefully admit I, as an ORM, did this too). I've heard more stories about evil URMs cheating the system to get in than I see URM medical students in person. I'm sure a lot of these stories are fabricated as well.


----

Now in the future I do think there'll be a point where currently deemed URMs will cease to be URMs in medicine and at that point, we can shift to a more race-neutral approach to MedAdmissions.
 
@Womb Raider

Seems like an angry individual to me. Why are you so upset man?! Isn't it funny how so many people get so riled about this as opposed to way more important issues of inequality? To me this indicates that prejudice/frustration/racism drives this argument more than actual hardship.

he is probably just some dude who voted for ron paul and read a couple ayn rand books and think that everyone in america has an equal opportunity to succeed regardless of how our social stratification system works.
 
My issue with this entire topic is that people are arguing for the fact that affirmative action exists at the college and professional school level as though there is no reason for it. But why not instead take a step back and try and understand why it's needed in the first place? Yes, we want a more diverse class for a more diverse physician population in which many will go back and serve those underserved and underrepresented communities (that they may or may not have come from).

But this honestly wouldn't be an issue if the problem of inequality was tackled at the level of how people are BROUGHT UP. This isn't some random phenomenon that exists right when a black or Hispanic is applying to college. Obviously no one is saying that every single URM is born in unfair conditions but a GREAT number of them are. Way more than white or Asian populations. And there are FAR more black/Hispanic communities out there that don't get the best health care. Guess what? There are studies out there that SHOW patients from specific groups receive lower quality health care than others: transgender, homosexual, black, Hispanic, etc. (Adcoms correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that people who are transgender or homosexual may also have special consideration because no one can deny that life just generally SUCKS for them and they have no control over that.)

Instead of arguing this issue at the level of a medical school, why aren't you instead advocating for a change in government policy in trying to actually turn impoverished communities with low opportunities into places in which there are more? If you start at this level, parents/children (no matter what race) will have access to better quality education and opportunities for jobs, so then they won't NEED an "unfair advantage" later on. But until THAT issue is resolved, I am in full support of "affirmative action," and this is coming from an ORM (Pakistani). But you're not going to argue for that issue, because it's not your concern, is it? It doesn't affect you until these URM's start taking your spot in medical school.

Just in my city alone everyone knows that there's a spot that's the "ghetto" part of the city in which many black families were basically forced to move there during the 60s and had to send their children to schools that lacked quality education. When you start off with a crappy education, you're not exactly going to get into Harvard even if you have the potential. So then you may not have the opportunity to go to college at all. No college degree, you get a crappy job. You stay in that area. You have your kids there. And then the same thing happens, over, and over, and over again. And no one is doing anything about it. We don't want to address it. That problem doesn't exist. People "put" themselves in that situation, right? Wrong.

There is such a thing as generational poverty and it may seem soooo easy to think that anyone can just change their life if they work hard enough, but it's not that simple AT ALL. If you don't have the connections or the means, well then sorry, you're kind of out of luck. My parents immigrated to the United States more than 25 years ago and my dad is STILL working a job that does not pay enough for the experience/knowledge that he has (probably because he doesn't have his degree from here). Unfortunately, going back to college is not an option for a lot of people, especially if they have five kids to support. So even though he works extremely hard and is dedicated, his situation and background isn't considered. And this is the case for a lot of immigrants. Someone may have their MD or PhD from another country but they end up working in a factory when they come to America. And I honestly wish there were considerations taken by companies for people with that kind of unique background (but I guess that would be discrimination in automatically giving a spot to "less qualified" immigrants over someone who is from the US).

And what do you mean, this URM "stole" a spot from someone else? Can you point me to some studies that show that URM's coming in with not the best stats turned out to be really terrible physicians ten years down the line? Because if that turns out to be a thing then no I won't support it. But if a medical student, regardless of what race they are, becomes a good physician, then how can you say they "stole" that spot? Isn't the whole point of choosing a class of students to create the best physicians possible that meets the goals of the school and needs of the community?

Would you look at every Hispanic and black physician and be inclined to believe that they stole a spot in their medical class from someone else? Because that would honestly be pretty terrible. (I mean that's basically what you're saying anyway.)

In the past two years, those who applied and matriculated:

Asians - 17,925 applied / 7,529 matriculated - 42%
Black - 7,027 applied / 2,461 matriculated - 35%
Hispanic - 5,654 applied / 2,480 - 44%
White - 47,353 applied / 20,983 matriculated - 44%

https://www.aamc.org/download/321472/data/factstable8.pdf
https://www.aamc.org/download/321474/data/factstable9.pdf

...what is this argument about again???

(And the whole "black on black" crime...just stop. That kind of crime is not racially charged like white on black OR black on white crime is. Or Hispanic on Asian, or Asian on Black, or white on Native American, or WHATEVER. You're trying to lump crimes as being the same when the motives are different. Wtf.)

And about that guy being mentally deranged...we discussed once in my English class back in high school the issue of using mental instability in the court of law and this one girl whose words always stuck with me was she looked at my teacher and said, "But don't you have to be crazy to kill somebody?"

Penny for your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
B) Exaggerates?????? Blacks make up ~13% of the population and commit more than half of all murders last time I checked. No exaggeration here.
--------------------
You guys really need to go read that other thread I linked (here it is again: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...chools-possibly-controversial-thread.1123877/) almost everything being discussed in this thread was mentioned over there
I think you should try analyzing the rates of crime relative to income levels. I may be wrong (and if I am I'd have no problem admitting it) but from my observation crime is committed more frequently by those living in impoverished or low-income circumstances, and it just so happens to be that African Americans live in these predicaments at higher rates than other races.

Also, you have to realize the blacks and other minorities are targeted by police officers more so than other ethnicities and thus are more likely to be arrested, are convicted of crimes and sentenced more often, and serve longer prison sentences on average than other races.
 
Last edited:
Are other jobs (waiter, pizza delivery boy etc.) as important to a person's well being as a physician? Do these jobs require the same skills, talents, and education? Is there a shortage of black/hispanic waiters/delivery boys? Is there peer reviewed evidence that suggests that black/hispanic delivery boys will be better at doing their job when serving their own races?

Flat out, it is not "subjective" feelings - there is evidence that suggests URM physicians do serve URM communities and their outcomes tend to be better - prominently in a primary care setting. You will not find a universal answer to this - there is a lot of context and nuance involved in AA in the medical world. You cannot create a sweeping generalization for every career out there. If that's what you are looking for, you will not find it.
Ask yourself why like-colored physicians perform better and provide better treatment to their patients. Is it because they have the same color skin? No. It's a combination of two things:

1. Cultural competency. The color of the physician's skin has unwillingly forced him to be categorized in a specific group of people (e.g. Blacks). This experience has shaped the way he has lived and experienced his life, largely as a result of public/social perception. Non-Black individuals simply cannot empathize with Black people on the same level as other Black individuals can, and there is some value in this. The same goes for every other race living here in America - we like to feel connected to those we impart our trust in.

2. The patient feels more comfortable communicating & interacting with someone who is like them. More trust, better communication, more honesty - all of these things equate to better health outcomes for obvious reasons. However, these are a result of subjective feelings in the patient. This is all about subjective comfort with one's physician.
------------
The problem is, I don't believe these two reasons should be dictating who provides medical care, and, ultimately how medical admissions are determined. A few things:

A. #1 isn't required for medical care. Sure it helps to understand where someone is coming from, but it isn't necessary, it just isn't. (We could argue this point all day, so I am purposely leaving it short).

B. #2 is a failing of the patient. I understand - I really do - that some people may have a very good reason not to trust certain races of people, but we need to start looking to the future. My generation does not have the same justification for hating/distrusting other races as those generations ago did (e.g. derived from slavery, Tuskegee, etc...). I grew up in public schools my entire life in a "not-so-great" town and Blacks, Mexicans, Whites, Asians - all got along decently in school. Sure, everyone had their "clicks" but some of my best friends growing up were not the same race as me. We need to be the change we hope to see in the world. If we want to live in a country where every race is considered equal, we shouldn't be implementing/supporting policies that say and encourage the complete opposite.

Look around. We're in 2015 - everyone sits on the bus together, there aren't separate restrooms and water fountains, segregation is a choice now, not a requirement. We need to make up our minds - treat everyone as equals, or don't. We can't have both. Either allow one-race care facilities or get rid of this nonsense.

C. (Ties in with my first point). The moment you become an individual that graduates from medical school with a doctorate, you're no longer in a category of people that can truly empathize with the majority of your poverty-stricken, homeless, chronically sick patients. I don't care if you're Black/White/Asian/Mexican - the patient will never truly connect with you because you're a "rich doctor." To pretend otherwise is delusional.

D. Last, not all physicians are involved directly in patient care (or even interact with patients at all). You said yourself this is primarily referring to family medicine. Perhaps we should pursue this route further and consider giving these boosts to admissions only to certain / guaranteed specialties, such as the accelerated family medicine tracks.

My issue with this entire topic is that people are arguing for the fact that affirmative action exists at the college and professional school level as though there is no reason for it. But why not instead take a step back and try and understand why it's needed in the first place? Yes, we want a more diverse class for a more diverse physician population in which many will go back and serve those underserved and underrepresented communities (that they may or may not have come from).
I understand the reasoning that supports AA. The problem is, we're trying to fix a problem using unethical means to expedite the process. You want equality? Start supporting systems that treat people equally.

Clarence Thomas (a Black Supreme Court justice) understood this in his Grutter v. Bollinger dissent.

Frederick Douglas understood this as evident in his speech What a Black Man Wants, "The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us....And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!...your interference is doing him positive injury."

Obviously no one is saying that every single URM is born in unfair conditions but a GREAT number of them are. Way more than white or Asian populations. And there are FAR more black/Hispanic communities out there that don't get the best health care.
Actually the number of Whites far surpass the number of URMs "born in unfair conditions." URMs may have a greater percentage born into this category, but when looking at sheer numbers Whites win hands-down.

But you're not going to argue for that issue, because it's not your concern, is it? It doesn't affect you until these URM's start taking your spot in medical school.
I got in a while ago, this has nothing to do with URMs taking my spot. This is about the ethics.


And what do you mean, this URM "stole" a spot from someone else? Can you point me to some studies that show that URM's coming in with not the best stats turned out to be really terrible physicians ten years down the line? Because if that turns out to be a thing then no I won't support it. But if a medical student, regardless of what race they are, becomes a good physician, then how can you say they "stole" that spot? Isn't the whole point of choosing a class of students to create the best physicians possible that meets the goals of the school and needs of the community?
Go look at the infamous graphs man. The prevailing logic is, if you were to take away distinguishing race from the application process, the results would be much different.

Would you look at every Hispanic and black physician and be inclined to believe that they stole a spot in their medical class from someone else? Because that would honestly be pretty terrible. (I mean that's basically what you're saying anyway.)
It's sad, but true. Many people (whether you want to believe it or not) do view URMs in medical school and perpetually wonder if they were really good enough to make the cut. I've met URMs who got in with a 35+ and 4.0, and I've also met some who got in with <25 and <3.0. The fact of the matter is, the large majority of URMs deserve to be in the class.

Unfortunately, the current system casts doubt in everyone's mind whether that URM really would've made it without the color of their skin bumping them up a notch. It robs the common, hardworking, deserving URM medical student of the dignity and respect that they deserve. This mindset doesn't end in medical school, I've worked in the hospital setting for quite some time and these racially-charged prejudices are pervasive everywhere - staff, nurses, physicians, patients, students - everyone. It's sad.

Do you know the best way to break free of these prejudices? Start treating everyone like equals. Right now URMs are being treated unequally (in their favor) and expect to be treated as equals, it's really a ridiculous expectation. But, until you start supporting a system that doesn't favor race, don't expect to be treated fairly and perceived as equals.

(And the whole "black on black" crime...just stop. That kind of crime is not racially charged like white on black OR black on white crime is. Or Hispanic on Asian, or Asian on Black, or white on Native American, or WHATEVER. You're trying to lump crimes as being the same when the motives are different. Wtf.)
Why are you automatically assuming all crime that happens between two people of different races is racially charged? Are you kidding me? Have you ever thought that their disagreement, you know, was derived from something other than race? This is the kind of BS that really gets on my nerves, you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Last edited:
Ask yourself why like-colored physicians perform better and provide better treatment to their patients. Is it because they have the same color skin? No. It's a combination of two things:

1. Cultural competency. The color of the physician's skin has unwillingly forced him to be categorized in a specific group of people (e.g. Blacks). This experience has shaped the way he has lived and experienced his life, largely as a result of public/social perception. Non-Black individuals simply cannot empathize with Black people on the same level as other Black individuals can, and there is some value in this. The same goes for every other race living here in America - we like to feel connected to those we impart our trust in.

2. The patient feels more comfortable communicating & interacting with someone who is like them. More trust, better communication, more honesty - all of these things equate to better health outcomes for obvious reasons. However, these are a result of subjective feelings in the patient. This is all about subjective comfort with one's physician.
------------
The problem is, I don't believe these two reasons should be dictating who provides medical care, and, ultimately how medical admissions are determined. A few things:

A. #1 isn't required for medical care. Sure it helps to understand where someone is coming from, but it isn't necessary, it just isn't. (We could argue this point all day, so I am purposely leaving it short).

B. #2 is a failing of the patient. I understand - I really do - that some people may have a very good reason not to trust certain races of people, but we need to start looking to the future. My generation does not have the same justification for hating/distrusting other races as those generations ago did (e.g. derived from slavery, Tuskegee, etc...). I grew up in public schools my entire life in a "not-so-great" town and Blacks, Mexicans, Whites, Asians - all got along decently in school. Sure, everyone had their "clicks" but some of my best friends growing up were not the same race as me. We need to be the change we hope to see in the world. If we want to live in a country where every race is considered equal, we shouldn't be implementing/supporting policies that say and encourage the complete opposite.

Look around. We're in 2015 - everyone sits on the bus together, there aren't separate restrooms and water fountains, segregation is a choice now, not a requirement. We need to make up our minds - treat everyone as equals, or don't. We can't have both. Either allow one-race care facilities or get rid of this nonsense.

C. (Ties in with my first point). The moment you become an individual that graduates from medical school with a doctorate, you're no longer in a category of people that can truly empathize with the majority of your poverty-stricken, homeless, chronically sick patients. I don't care if you're Black/White/Asian/Mexican - the patient will never truly connect with you because you're a "rich doctor." To pretend otherwise is delusional.

D. Last, not all physicians are involved directly in patient care (or even interact with patients at all). You said yourself this is primarily referring to family medicine. Perhaps we should pursue this route further and consider giving these boosts to admissions only to certain / guaranteed specialties, such as the accelerated family medicine tracks.


I understand the reasoning that supports AA. The problem is, we're trying to fix a problem using unethical means to expedite the process. You want equality? Start supporting systems that treat people equally.

1) Okay.

2) Yes, thanks for admitting that they lead to better health outcomes. What does it matter if it is based on subjective feelings and interactions? That's how humans work. You want to tell patients to act more objectively?

A1) Not required, but it helps, as supported by numerous studies. So why try to impede it?

A2) This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why AA helps URM communities. Its not really because they mistrust OTHER races; doctors of other races could still do a competent job of course. But those of their own communities do a BETTER job in a primary care setting. Also we are in 2015 but racial prejudice is FAR from over, do not kid yourself here. There is institutional bias all throughout this country.

C) As soon as one starts making good money they forget where they come from? You're basing this off what exactly? Sounds ridiculous and made up to support your argument. You shouldn't make claims like this without backing up with a source.

D) Maybe. But you should still have a problem with this, since it is "reverse discrimination".


Yes, I want equality, many people do. But the fact of the matter is that this country is NOT equal, be it socioeconomically, racially, or academically. This IS a way to address that divide. Do you realize WHY blacks/hispanics need assistance via AA? Do you understand how much discrimination they have faced throughout history in this country? That's the irony in your viewpoint. You are claiming to be self righteous and want equality for all - AA is one way to accomplish that in the medical world and you're against it. What other ideas do you have? Just wait it out for 100 years until people are more equal somehow without any initiatives being taken? I agree with you that this is not a permanent solution, but for now it is necessary.
 
A1) Not required, but it helps, as supported by numerous studies. So why try to impede it?

Lol?

There are lots of things out there that can benefit a certain group of people. Just because we're capable of doing something doesn't mean that we should. This is where ethics comes in. You support discriminating based on skin color in 2015 - I don't. There's really not much else we need to discuss, we're at an impasse.

A2) This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why AA helps URM communities. Its not really because they mistrust OTHER races; doctors of other races could still do a competent job of course. But those of their own communities do a BETTER job in a primary care setting.
Explain to me why they do a better job again? Trust and comfort is a key factor in this discrepancy.

C) As soon as one starts making good money they forget where they come from? You're basing this off what exactly? Sounds ridiculous and made up to support your argument. You shouldn't make claims like this without backing up with a source.
This statement just shows your naivete. Have you actually spent time working with doctors serving the population I was describing? What about in the ER?

I never said they forget where they came from, but a doctor's lifestyle, social and professional experiences are much different from the average individual living in poverty - there is no getting around this. So, while you may have been able to relate to someone by drawing on your past experiences countless years ago, it is nevertheless no longer a reality (re: SES problems) or not as pronounced as those individuals you are treating.

We see this paradox everywhere. We see it with politicians who claim to be an advocate for the "people." We see this with academics, or scholars who sit in their ivory towers and write about the hardships of their people (e.g. Womanist scholars). You can't have it both ways, and whether we like to admit it or not, there's always a little bit of hypocrisy involved.

D) Maybe. But you should still have a problem with this, since it is "reverse discrimination".
I do still have a problem with it, but it would be better than the current system because fewer people would be wronged.

This IS a way to address that divide.
The difference between you and me is I'm not comfortable compromising my morality in order to try to fix a problem. It's just sad you think this is the right way to do things, when unfairly treating people based on their skin color was how these problems started in the first place. Alas, I don't think we'll agree.
 
Lol?

There are lots of things out there that can benefit a certain group of people. Just because we're capable of doing something doesn't mean that we should. This is where ethics comes in. You support discriminating based on skin color in 2015 - I don't. There's really not much else we need to discuss, we're at an impasse.

To let the status quo go unchecked is also supporting discrimination (i.e. no support for those who have a disadvantage throughout this country) - AA is a way to even things out, as well as provide medical care in underserved areas.

But you're right, we fundamentally disagree. I see AA as a response to discrimination, you see it is a cause of discrimination. The rest of the things we are debating will not matter if you hold this viewpoint.

I admit that in an ideal world there would be no need to compromise one's morality, but it is important to stay pragmatic when facing the realities of the modern world. It is far from ideal.
 
@ngc 2170 I would be not be surprised to find literature supporting the idea that the race/ethnicity agreement between the practitioner and patient does not afford care advantage. However, I am equally expecting to find a correlation between gross medical representation and health care outcomes with respect to race/ethnicity.

@Hyde
We have heard anecdotal evidence that physician/patient race agreement improves trust and therefore health outcome but i'm not surprised to see literature leaning the other way. However, gross medical representation is thought to penetrate social divides and I would be interested in seeing research into the effect of equal representation.

As Obi Wan Kenobi famously said, "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

these-arent-the-droids.jpg
 
AA is a way to even things out, as well as provide medical care in underserved areas.

I see AA as a response to discrimination, you see it is a cause of discrimination.

Even things out? Seriously? For AA proponents equal opportunities are not enough. They are striving for the same outcomes.

But attitudes about the "value" of AA are changing thankfully according to a a survey taken of 3000 millennials last year by MTV. Here are the key results:

snip

Despite the reality of their experience, their unwavering belief in equality trumps all else and makes it difficult for them to support affirmative action (Note ‐ there was no statistical difference by race for first two bullets).

  •  88% believe that favoring one race over another is unfair, because of their belief in equality.

  •  90% believe that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race.

  •  70% believe it’s never fair to give preferential treatment to one race over another, regardless of historical inequalities. (65% for POC, 74% for White).
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/s...644/DBR_MTV_Bias_Survey_Executive_Summary.pdf
 
@Hyde
However, gross medical representation is thought to penetrate social divides and I would be interested in seeing research into the effect of equal representation.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 
Ideally, URM recruitment would continue until some amount of parity is achieved between these demographics, in the physician and patient population. At the moment, that is clearly not the case.

Ideally medical schools should always select individuals on the basis of merit, not some flakey notion of matching matriculants with demographics.
 
None of my African-American students ever came from wealthy families, and even if they did, the road they traveled is still worth considering, simply because of the flaws in our society. If anyone disagrees with this....

Errr, I believe President Obama disagrees with you. He said he hoped his daughters, who have grown up in a family of privilege, would not be admitted to college because of AA. ( rough paraphrase)
 
  •  88% believe that favoring one race over another is unfair, because of their belief in equality.
  •  90% believe that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race.
  •  70% believe it’s never fair to give preferential treatment to one race over another, regardless of historical inequalities. (65% for POC, 74% for White).
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/s...644/DBR_MTV_Bias_Survey_Executive_Summary.pdf

Yet all of these things happen in this country, as there is institutional discrimination against minorities. Opportunities are not equal, no matter how deluded you are in believing so.
 
he is probably just some dude...

Who says dude anymore?
Yet all of these things happen in this country, as there is institutional discrimination against minorities. Opportunities are not equal, no matter how deluded you are in believing so.

Millennials like myself are not deluded. We live in the present, not the past. Legal challenges to Grutter are in the pipeline. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act forbid racial preferences.
 
Millennials like myself are not deluded. We live in the present, not the past. Legal challenges to Grutter are in the pipeline. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act forbid racial preferences.

This sort of stuff isn't just "in the pipeline". It's been fought over with victories for both sides for quite a while. The UC system is legally race-blinded already. And at least for the undergrad level, a couple studies have indicated that achieving the stated goal of more minority representation in STEM could actually be aided by less AA, as the current system boosts minority applicants up to compete with more academically prepared peers and results in a much higher weedout rate for them.
 
But why not instead take a step back and try and understand why it's needed in the first place? Yes, we want a more diverse class for a more diverse physician population in which many will go back and serve those underserved and underrepresented communities (that they may or may not have come from).

But this honestly wouldn't be an issue if the problem of inequality was tackled at the level of how people are BROUGHT UP. This isn't some random phenomenon that exists right when a black or Hispanic is applying to college. Obviously no one is saying that every single URM is born in unfair conditions but a GREAT number of them are. Way more than white or Asian populations

Instead of arguing this issue at the level of a medical school, why aren't you instead advocating for a change in government policy in trying to actually turn impoverished communities with low opportunities into places in which there are more? If you start at this level, parents/children (no matter what race) will have access to better quality education and opportunities for jobs, so then they won't NEED an "unfair advantage" later on. But until THAT issue is resolved, I am in full support of "affirmative action," and this is coming from an ORM (Pakistani). But you're not going to argue for that issue, because it's not your concern, is it? It doesn't affect you until these URM's start taking your spot in medical school.

Just in my city alone everyone knows that there's a spot that's the "ghetto" part of the city in which many black families were basically forced to move there during the 60s and had to send their children to schools that lacked quality education. When you start off with a crappy education, you're not exactly going to get into Harvard even if you have the potential. So then you may not have the opportunity to go to college at all. No college degree, you get a crappy job. You stay in that area. You have your kids there. And then the same thing happens, over, and over, and over again. And no one is doing anything about it.

There is such a thing as generational poverty and it may seem soooo easy to think that anyone can just change their life if they work hard enough, but it's not that simple AT ALL.

Can you point me to some studies that show that URM's coming in with not the best stats turned out to be really terrible physicians ten years down the line? Because if that turns out to be a thing then no I won't support it. But if a medical student, regardless of what race they are, becomes a good physician, then how can you say they "stole" that spot? Isn't the whole point of choosing a class of students to create the best physicians possible

In the past two years, those who applied and matriculated:

Asians - 17,925 applied / 7,529 matriculated - 42%
Black - 7,027 applied / 2,461 matriculated - 35%
Hispanic - 5,654 applied / 2,480 - 44%
White - 47,353 applied / 20,983 matriculated - 44%

https://www.aamc.org/download/321472/data/factstable8.pdf
https://www.aamc.org/download/321474/data/factstable9.pdf

...what is this argument about again???

(And the whole "black on black" crime...just stop. That kind of crime is not racially charged like white on black OR black on white crime is. Or Hispanic on Asian, or Asian on Black, or white on Native American, or WHATEVER. You're trying to lump crimes as being the same when the motives are different. Wtf.)

And about that guy being mentally deranged...we discussed once in my English class back in high school the issue of using mental instability in the court of law and this one girl whose words always stuck with me was she looked at my teacher and said, "But don't you have to be crazy to kill somebody?"

Penny for your thoughts.

I don't know where to start. Let's just say I'm flabbergasted and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Who says dude anymore?


Millennials like myself are not deluded. We live in the present, not the past. Legal challenges to Grutter are in the pipeline. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act forbid racial preferences.

If you don't understand that there is institutional discrimination against minorities all throughout this country then we can end the discussion right here. You're not worth arguing with.
 
If you don't understand that there is institutional discrimination against minorities all throughout this country then we can end the discussion right here. You're not worth arguing with.
When you see "institutional discrimination" all through this country, I see SCJ Clarence Thomas, President Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeh Johnson, Mia Love, Lisa Jackson, etc etc. Perhaps we both need to get our eyes checked because one of us has very poor vision.
 
When you see "institutional discrimination" all through this country, I see SCJ Clarence Thomas, President Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeh Johnson, Mia Love, Lisa Jackson, etc etc. Perhaps we both need to get our eyes checked because one of us has very poor vision.

Exceptions often prove the rule do they not?

Edit: I have no opinion on this particular matter. Just saying.
 
Exceptions often prove the rule do they not?

Edit: I have no opinion on this particular matter. Just saying.

No evidence of institutional discrimination was provided. There was no rule. Just saying.
 
No evidence of institutional discrimination was provided. There was no rule. Just saying.
really? cause thats not really the story given by the people you mentioned, for example clarence thomas:

"M.C. left his family when Thomas was two years old. Thomas' mother worked hard but was sometimes paid only pennies per day. She had difficulty putting food on the table and was forced to rely on charity"

"Living with his grandparents, Thomas enjoyed amenities such as indoor plumbing and regular meals for the first time in his life"

"Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. While there, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union. Once he walked out after an incident in which black students were punished while white students went undisciplined for committing the same violation, and some of the priests negotiated with the protesting black students to re-enter the school"

"
Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[17] According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated."[18]

I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value
"

The reason we know clarence thomas's story is because he was somehow able to overcome these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, to advance to his current position (thus, he is the exception). However, I don't think it takes a large leap of faith to understand that there were likely others who were unable to overcome these obstacles (the rule). Whether we call them "systematic, institutional, societal, socioeconomic", at that point its just nomenclature.
 
Last edited:
????

A) People started talking about "black on black" crime because of the media's obsession with reporting the rare case of white vs. black crime, while neglecting to mention the hundreds of similar cases that are black vs. black (or really, even black vs. white) as if those lives weren't worth mentioning. It's all about the $$$ and is a disgrace.
B) Exaggerates?????? Blacks make up ~13% of the population and commit more than half of all murders last time I checked. No exaggeration here.
--------------------
You guys really need to go read that other thread I linked (here it is again: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...chools-possibly-controversial-thread.1123877/) almost everything being discussed in this thread was mentioned over there. But, since I know 99% of you won't go read it, I'll ask a few questions:

1. When should we stop providing advantages for people with certain skin colors? Seriously, I want to hear a stopping point that is capable of being measured (e.g. don't tell me "when everyone treats everyone equally!!!!1"). Anyone want to give this one a shot?

2. It's clear that some patients prefer to go to doctors with the same skin color, and, according to the tones of these threads, almost everyone (excluding myself and a few other brave souls) seem to not have a problem thinking the patient has a right to choose their doctor based on their skin color. Why stop at physicians? Why don't we let kids pick school teachers and professors that have the same skin color as them? I'm sure you could dig up evidence somewhere that teachers of similar cultures/backgrounds are more effective when teaching. When I order a food delivery from Papa Johns, why can't I request a white/black/mexican/indian/asian delivery man, so that I feel more comfortable? Can I ask for a (insert race here) waiter/waitress when ordering food at the restaurant? Heck, let's just go ahead and make restaurants and schools that employee only one race so that families can pick and choose where their kids go to school and feel the most comfortable and woved!

You guys picking up on the irony of your position yet?
------------
Honestly, I don't support this pseudo-AA system in higher education, but I understand the logic behind it. All I ask is that those of you who support it admit that it's discrimination, albeit justified (in your mind) discrimination. There is no way avoiding this; if you deny it's discriminating based on skin color, you're delusional. I just want you to admit that you're consciously supporting a system that provides advantages for individuals based on skin color in the year 2015. The problem is, 99% of you are too pathetic to even do that. Keep living in your fantasy.
1. When there's no appreciable difference in opportunity based on race and when poor and minority communities have sufficient health care providers.
2. lol. Banco did a fine job with this.

I read the first few pages of that thread. I find it amusing how you told us to read it in order to learn while you ignored a decent amount of opposing viewpoints.
Your argument against AA is ridiculous. You claim that AA gives reason for whites to hold racist attitudes while admitting that racism has decreased over the time period of AA. It's quite clear that people do not need a reason to hold racist views. You believing otherwise is reminiscent of the classic power dynamic which caused and causes so much trouble. By removing AA policies you will limit opportunities that are already scarce for MANY minorities. This will cause an increase in poverty and crime which will be used as a reason for racism.

What you are proposing will create a further racial divide in opportunity in this country. By removing the only bulwark of discrimination, you will effectively increase systemic racism faced by minorities. I wonder if you'll own up to this or reveal yourself as a coward.
 
The best won't go into family practice and pediatrics and internal medicine in inner-city and rural America. The good-enough will serve in those areas. Furthermore, schools want, and need (for accreditation) to have diverse student body and American needs a diverse workforce. Applicants who are "good enough" are cherry picked to fill those roles.

And @xyphr, no subjects in Tuskeegee were injected with syphilis or otherwise deliberately infected. Don't go starting rumors.

True. However, 60,000 African American, Puerto Rican, Japanese American, as well as white soldiers (who were used as 'controls') were deliberately gassed with chemical weapons to see if there was a difference between races in how they reacted to things like mustard gas. Some of those men are still alive today and live with the health effects. So, I wouldn't put it past the US to have deliberately infect soldiers.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/22/41519...e-in-secret-world-war-ii-chemical-experiments
 
True. However, 60,000 African American, Puerto Rican, Japanese American, as well as white soldiers (who were used as 'controls') were deliberately gassed with chemical weapons to see if there was a difference between races in how they reacted to things like mustard gas. Some of those men are still alive today and live with the health effects. So, I wouldn't put it past the US to have deliberately infect soldiers.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/22/41519...e-in-secret-world-war-ii-chemical-experiments

And institutionalized children with intellectual disabilities were deliberately infected with hepatitis as part of research studies funded by the US Army in the 1950s. No one is saying that there have been atrocities committed in the name of medical research but the Tuskeegee Study did not include deliberately infecting anyone.
 
There's no confirmation of the theory that physicians and patients of the same race improve health outcomes of minorities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209820/

"Patient-provider-race-concordance: does it matter in improving minority patients' health outcomes"
I haven't seen that before, thanks.
That URM docs are more likely to serve URM populations is still enough to justify the policy without even needing to argue for broad AA imo.
 
I think a lot of people ignore the fact that if it were not for Affirmative action and equal opportunity programs many employers today would still discriminate against people based on their skin color and gender no matter how qualified they are.

People on here just like to pick and choose what discrimination is.... want examples?

How many times have we heard people complain about the fact that a few historically black colleges still exist? Yet, I have never heard anyone complain about the crap ton of women only colleges that still exist. Gender discrimination anyone? Nope, because those schools were opened to give women opportunities they were barred from unlike Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse... oh wait.

http://www.collegechoice.net/rankings/best-womens-colleges/

Also, when medical schools decided to make sure half of their incoming class should be women were they discriminating against some men? I mean, after all they can't take everyone. Feel bad when an ORM guy gets rejected with 36+ MCAT score? I know plenty of ORM women at top 20's with 31-33 MCAT scores (some in MD/PhD programs; plenty of them on this site), does that boil your blood too? Anyone?


Medical schools just want a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the population of patients they serve. Deal with it.
 
I think a lot of people ignore the fact that if it were not for Affirmative action and equal opportunity programs many employers today would still discriminate against people based on their skin color and gender no matter how qualified they are.

People on here just like to pick and choose what discrimination is.... want examples?

How many times have we heard people complain about the fact that a few historically black colleges still exist? Yet, I have never heard anyone complain about the crap ton of women only colleges that still exist. Gender discrimination anyone? Nope, because those schools were opened to give women opportunities they were barred from unlike Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse... oh wait.

http://www.collegechoice.net/rankings/best-womens-colleges/

Also, when medical schools decided to make sure half of their incoming class should be women were they discriminating against some men? I mean, after all they can't take everyone. Feel bad when an ORM guy gets rejected with 36+ MCAT score? I know plenty of ORM women at top 20's with 31-33 MCAT scores (some in MD/PhD programs; plenty of them on this site), does that boil your blood too? Anyone?


Medical schools just want a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the population of patients they serve. Deal with it.

gender discrimination is also wrong...
 
gender discrimination is also wrong...
Yet... where is the outrage about that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm 1000% for more women in medicine and could care less that some (definitely not all) get in with lower scores. I just think some people love to beat up on minorities because they are easy targets. White women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action but every discussion about AA focuses minorities getting an unfair advantage. To me, it's BS to say a white woman at a top 20 with 31-33 MCAT will be a competent physician....But the black guy at UChicago with a 32 and the Latin woman with a 31 at UCLA will hurt patients and that they stole seats from more qualified ORM applicants...
 
Yet... where is the outrage about that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm 1000% for more women in medicine and could care less that some (definitely not all) get in with lower scores. I just think some people love to beat up on minorities because they are easy targets. White women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action but every discussion about AA focuses minorities getting an unfair advantage. To me, it's BS to say a white woman at a top 20 with 31-33 MCAT will be a competent physician....But the black guy at UChicago with a 32 and the Latin woman with a 31 at UCLA will hurt patients and that they stole seats from more qualified applicants...

I don't know that many people are saying any of them won't be competent. If you survive the training, you are pretty much competent. (I haven't seen any statistics on an advantage for female applicants but I'll trust you for the purposes of my response)... I think one advantage is more publicized than the other (think about the charts in the WAMC stickies) and so it gets discussed more. Neither should exist, but they do...and until they don't, someone will bring it up.
 
really? cause thats not really the story given by the people you mentioned, for example clarence thomas:

You live in the past. Clarence Thomas does not. Clarence Thomas is a vocal opponent of AA. He has compared AA to Jim Crow laws. Here's some of his quotes.

snip

Thomas says that the “University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists" and that there "is no principled distinction" between the two.

It's a position he has staked out before; particularly in a 2003 case on the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies.

Here's a sampling of what Thomas said in today's opinion:

* “Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.”

* “The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. … There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.”

* “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-affirmative-action-policies-to-segregation/
 
Top