I'm going to leave my own thoughts on this topic out of the conversation for the time being, because I want to know why you would want to do this. As someone who hasn't even begun medical school yet, what issues could you have already with the makeup of your class/school? Why does the thought of increasing the number of minorities in medical schools bother you? What do you think would be gained in medical schools by focusing solely on socioeconomic status?
As much as I have to say on this subject, I don't believe I can engage in a fruitful discussion with you until you make it clear why you feel this is a necessary change to make.
Hey there, I appreciate the response. To answer your question, I feel that it's necessary to focus purely on academic credentials and socioeconomic status during the admissions process because it's in my opinion the best way to ensure physician quality while evening the playing field for those who truly need it aka the socioeconomically disadvantaged. A policy like the one I'm proposing shouldn't have any conflict with ensuring that minorities be included in a medical school class, since like many have pointed out, many times race and socioeconomic status are intertwined. For example, an underprivileged African American applicant will still have the benefit of an even playing field--it simply wouldn't be because of his/her race, but because of the obstacles he/she had to overcome. My problem with the system currently is that a middle class URM can still have an unnecessary advantage over an ORM from an impoverished community.
To address a few of the points brought up by some who have responded:
Point: If this system was implemented, few would serve in underserved/culturally diverse areas, because stellar medical students tend to shy away from that.
Response: Med students who have experienced growing up disadvantaged will most likely also gravitate towards giving back to impoverished communities. Furthermore, even IF the system was completely based on academic performance/credentials, eventually some students wouldn't be as "stellar" compared to their peers based on the bell curve principle. Those students will eventually have to settle for less competitive specialties, ensuring that we wouldn't have a shortage of primary care physicians. Example: If medical schools only took 4.0/35s, eventually some of those 4.0/35s wouldn't be able to outperform their peers. Residency spots for hyper competitive specialties remain constant for the most part, so some of those 4.0/35s would eventually need to go into less competitive ones.
Point: Studies show that a 3.3/26 is enough to handle medical school curriculum. A 3.3/26 applicant will graduate medical school just like his 3.9/31 counterpart.
Response: That may be true, but handling a curriculum is much different then excelling in a curriculum. As doctors, shouldn't we always strive for excellence not only for ourselves, but also for our patients? Patients deserve a physician who not only handled med school curriculum, but also excelled in it. Furthermore, studies show that under a 26 MCAT, there is a significant impact on Step1 performance and pass rate. I trust the study, but my instinct tells me that a person who scored borderline to that 26 is going to have a much tougher time on his/her boards. I do recognize that there are exceptions to every rule, however.
Point: Matriculating URMs overall are just as academically proficient GPA/MCAT wise, if not more proficient than their ORM counterparts.
Response: I want to start off by saying that I completely agree that something like the above happens. However, based on statistics and not anecdotal evidence, I'm sorry to say that this simply isn't true overall. Based on the AAMC data from this year's cycle, URM matriculants do tend to have lower stats. Now I realize that there are plenty of reasons this can happen, but I'm just here to talk about overall trends.
https://www.aamc.org/download/321498/data/factstablea18.pdf
According to the matriculant table, Native Americans, Blacks and Hispanics had an average GPA and MCAT of 3.51/27.4, 3.48/27.4, and 3.59/28, respectively. On the other hand, matriculants of White and Asian ethnicity had an average GPA/MCAT of 3.73/31.8 and 3.73/32.8, respectively.
Final thoughts: People might be wondering: "What's the difference between a system based on race and socioeconomic status? The difference is that a system based on URMs allows for people of that race who aren't disadvantaged to take advantage of such a system. A system based on socioeconomic status allows for both underprivileged URMs and ORMs to benefit mutually. Furthermore, the current system tries to correct for lowered GPA/MCAT based on disadvantaged races, arguing that the full academic potential of such an applicant hasn't been reached. But what happens when an upper middle class URM who's had many more opportunities (ability to reach his potential) granted to him gets accepted with subpar stats over an underprivileged ORM who hasn't had a chance to reach his full potential? That's where this current system inherently fails. Of course, I understand that there will always be a way to bend the rules, but the optimistic side of me hopes that a system based on academic credentials and socioeconomic status would be harder to take advantage of.
No matter your opinion, I wanted to thank everyone who's responded. I've learned a lot from reading this thread and will take as much as I can with me as I pursue my medical career. Thank you!
P.S. Screw legacy invites. That
definitely needs to go.
