GPA/MCAT Acceptance Rates

[Womb Raider]

**I would like to preface this by saying that this is a legitimate post and I am in no way trying to troll or start a war. I searched for this topic and only found posts by banned members with no serious discussion. I am not complaining.**

I would like to discuss the statistics regarding the acceptance rate based on gpa/MCAT located HERE (specifically the graphs based on ethnicity).

I knew there were different acceptance rates based on one's ethnicity - but I had no idea the chasm was this substantial. In some cases the chance of getting accepted is nearly 4x higher depending which ethnicity you are.

I would like to start a discussion on whether or not you guys agree with the current method of acceptance (involving the data in the link above).

As medical doctors, we are directly involved in the preservation of human life - arguably the most important vocation of our race. When a human life is dangling by a thread, there is little room for error. Doctors are not like mechanics - we cannot (usually..) order a new part and try again if we fail.

As such, should the field of medicine limit their recruitment solely to the upper echelon of pre-medical students or the "crème de la crème" if you will? Should we completely remove the gender and ethnicity "checkboxes" on applications? Thoughts?

I understand that there are *many* qualities that contribute to being a good physician, qualities that far surpass GPA and MCAT scores. However, it is my understanding that those stats are currently the best predictors for medical schools to evaluate applicants and I honestly don't see that changing anytime soon.

So what do you guys think? I would love to hear some thoughts, maybe other perspectives explaining why the current system is the way it is.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Flashfan]

Search function is your friend.

 

[Womb Raider]

Search function is your friend.

I did search - didn't find anything. If you found something why not post a link?

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Those stats largely predict who will be an academically successful medical student. They don't say much about who will be a "good physician" which is hard to define or predict, since people disagree about what it means. Who is a "better doctor" -- a brilliant but abrasive Duke neurosurgeon with terrible patient satisfaction scores or a universally loved rural family physician who barely passed Step 1 and had to repeat biochemistry and anatomy?

There is broad agreement that an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse physician workforce is more desirable than one composed of white men from wealthy families, hence the current policies.

I happen to think that socioeconomic status should replace race as an important factor in medical school admissions, but many people disagree.

 

[Doctor Strange]

This is essentially an affirmative action thread, which has been done many, many times before.

 

[ilikeponies]

I know I've seen this topic around before, but I'm going to comment anyways.

I strongly believe that both gender and ethnicity should be completely irrelevant when deciding who gets accepted and who doesn't. Just because you are of a certain ethnicity does NOT necessarily mean you have not had equal opportunity to pursue an education, etc. While I do not agree that every student accepted has to have a 45 MCAT/ 4.0 GPA/ stellar ECs, I certainly do not feel that a decision should be made exclusively on race/ethnicity. If there is a "URM" who shows promise as a physician through character traits, good grades, etc., then that person should absolutely be admitted - but because s/he is qualified, not because s/he is a URM. If there's a "URM" who has not-so-great credentials - grades, personality, etc. - then s/he should NOT be given special consideration simply because s/he is a "minority". Because, as I said, just because someone is of a particular ethnic/racial status does not mean that they fall into the stereotype of that ethnic/racial status by default. I agree that extenuating circumstances should be considered - i.e. someone who couldn't financially afford to apply to big-name experiences, but worked hard and excelled at the activities s/he did engage in - but, again, race/ethnicity should have NOTHING to do with it. If you're qualified, you should be extended an invitation. If you're not, you should not be.

That didn't exactly come across as eloquently as I intended. Long story short... you should be accepted because your personal attributes, experiences, performance, etc. suggest that you would be a good fit, not solely because of your race/ethnicity.

I happen to think that socioeconomic status should replace race as an important factor in medical school admissions, but many people disagree.

100% agree with this - however, my previous point still applies. That's not to say that just because you're wealthy you should be cast aside, or accepted just because you're "poor". For me, it all goes back to if you really worked hard to better your situation and excelled at whatever experiences you could get your hands on.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Here's some stuff to read:

https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/diversity/recommended_reading/

Also, read this ebook about Flexner:

http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Pages/eBooks.aspx

 

[rfvbnmju]

Doctors are not like mechanics - we cannot (usually..) order a new part and try again if we fail.

When we get to the point of cybernization, we can order a new mechanical part and swap out our fleshy organs for it.

I did search - didn't find anything. If you found something why not post a link?

Try Affirmative Action or racial preference in admission or something along those lines

 

[Womb Raider]

Who is a "better doctor" -- a brilliant but abrasive Duke neurosurgeon with terrible patient satisfaction scores or a universally loved rural family physician who barely passed Step 1 and had to repeat biochemistry and anatomy?

Different definitions of "better doctor" yes - but if you don't have the knowledge to adequately treat your patients, people skills don't matter.

I think it is a fair assumption that most Americans would prefer a knowledgeable doctor with poor social skills to a bubbly, super friendly people person lacking in knowledge. Personality and people skills help but they don't save lives.

 

[BABSstudent]

**I would like to preface this by saying that this is a legitimate post and I am in no way trying to troll or start a war. I searched for this topic and only found posts by banned members with no serious discussion. I am not complaining.**

I would like to discuss the statistics regarding the acceptance rate based on gpa/MCAT located HERE (specifically the graphs based on ethnicity).

I knew there were different acceptance rates based on one's ethnicity - but I had no idea the chasm was this substantial. In some cases the chance of getting accepted is nearly 4x higher depending which ethnicity you are.

I would like to start a discussion on whether or not you guys agree with the current method of acceptance (involving the data in the link above).

As medical doctors, we are directly involved in the preservation of human life - arguably the most important vocation of our race. When a human life is dangling by a thread, there is little room for error. Doctors are not like mechanics - we cannot (usually..) order a new part and try again if we fail.

As such, should the field of medicine limit their recruitment solely to the upper echelon of pre-medical students or the "crème de la crème" if you will? Should we completely remove the gender and ethnicity "checkboxes" on applications? Thoughts?

I understand that there are *many* qualities that contribute to being a good physician, qualities that far surpass GPA and MCAT scores. However, it is my understanding that those stats are currently the best predictors for medical schools to evaluate applicants and I honestly don't see that changing anytime soon.

So what do you guys think? I would love to hear some thoughts, maybe other perspectives explaining why the current system is the way it is.

So what does stats have anything to say with how good of a doctor you will be? If you really want that, then the acceptance rates should also increase for high stat people and decrease for the lower numbers.

Personally, I am okay with the way the numbers look. What?!?! This must seem like blasphemy. Let me explain why.

There are huge physician shortages in the United States. Guess what, there really isn't a shortage of white or asian physicians. This means that if you are a white or asian patient and want to see a physician that came from a similar background as you (which happens), then it will be easy to find one. Well, what about immigrants or other groups such as Native Americans or African Americans? I mean, can you really relate to the culture of the Native Americans? I know almost nothing about them despite my school talking heavily about them from 4th grade to 7th grade. The same is true with people in the ghetto, I never grew up there and would never truly understand what it means to live there and the pressures they grow up with.

That's why it is nice to recruit from applicants from those groups. There is a better chance these people will grow up and practice there. This is one way of addressing this disparity.

Also, there are other things like trying to recruit physicians that speak more than one language (for example, Spanish). In this example, there is a fairly large Latino population that only speaks Spanish. Well, for schools that serve these locations it makes sense to recruit students that speak Spanish. This means that students who are bilingual have a higher chance of getting in which is mainly Latino/a applicants. Heck, some schools even have bilingual requirements to apply (see Ponce School of Medicine).

Anyways, and I will probably get flamed for saying this, having the disparity in acceptance rates for the different ethnicity is probably the best for patients. As upset as it makes you, attrition in US medical schools is super low so it isn't like accepting these applicants lowers the caliber of the schools.

 

[cookiemonsters]

I wish white people could just take back America.

 

[Womb Raider]

There are huge physician shortages in the United States. Guess what, there really isn't a shortage of white or asian physicians. This means that if you are a white or asian patient and want to see a physician that came from a similar background as you (which happens), then it will be easy to find one. Well, what about immigrants or other groups such as Native Americans or African Americans?

Hmmm... Not sure I agree regarding the shortage of physicians in US. Other things come to mind: Obamacare, population growth vs. med school sizes, female physicians retiring/becoming part-time with childbirth..

Yes, I agree that whites and asians are more likely to find a doctor of similar background. However, this should be viewed as a luxury or "bonus" to your healthcare, especially if you aren't paying a dime for it. When someone comes in with syphilis, it doesn't matter if the doctor is white, black or asian - they're getting antibiotics regardless of what color the doctor is (unless of course, the doctor doesn't have adequate knowledge to make the Dx).

 

[BABSstudent]

Hmmm... Not sure I agree regarding the shortage of physicians in US. Other things come to mind: Obamacare, population growth vs. med school sizes, female physicians retiring/becoming part-time with childbirth..

Yes, I agree that whites and asians are more likely to find a doctor of similar background. However, this should be viewed as a luxury or "bonus" to your healthcare, especially if you aren't paying a dime for it. When someone comes in with syphilis, it doesn't matter if the doctor is white, black or asian - they're getting antibiotics regardless of what color the doctor is (unless of course, the doctor doesn't have adequate knowledge to make the Dx).

Spoken like someone who has never had a problem like I said above.

And yes, diseases require treatments that will be similar (not the same) with all population groups. But there is so much more to healthcare and being a doctor than just diagnosing.

 

[cookiemonsters]

And yes, diseases require treatments that will be similar (not the same) with all population groups. But there is so much more to healthcare and being a doctor than just diagnosing.

There are some communities where cultural competency is more important, EG places where 90+% of the population only speaks Chinese or Spanish or something, but I think for the other 95% of the US, cultural competency is overrated. Someone could enlighten all of us by providing modern examples of when cultural competency, besides language barriers, greatly impeded a physician's ability to provide care.

 

[BABSstudent]

There are some communities where cultural competency is more important, EG places where 90+% of the population only speaks Chinese or Spanish or something, but I think for the other 95% of the US, cultural competency is overrated.

But cultural competency is only one aspect of it! What about rural areas, what about socioeconomic disparities of population groups, what about gender/sexual orientation/family structure issues. There are many more aspects to this too that I haven't named!

It isn't as simple as a one fix solution to a multi faceted problem.

 

[cookiemonsters]

But cultural competency is only one aspect of it! What about rural areas, what about socioeconomic disparities of population groups, what about gender/sexual orientation/family structure issues. There are many more aspects to this too that I haven't named!

It isn't as simple as a one fix solution to a multi faceted problem.

But this thread is essentially about race, and the barriers to entry for people with the wrong color of melanin. EG I am all for a physician who grew up in a poor area and is committed to returning to a similar area to provide care - but if that person is white or Asian, it seems medical schools really don't care as much. This comes back to the topic of SES vs race, and which should medical schools be looking at? Should a person's competency with a particular culture be diregarded by most schools simply because he's not an URM?

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

There are some communities where cultural competency is more important, EG places where 90+% of the population only speaks Chinese or Spanish or something, but I think for the other 95% of the US, cultural competency is overrated. Someone could enlighten all of us by providing modern examples of when cultural competency, besides language barriers, greatly impeded a physician's ability to provide care.

The LCME (and US medical schools) tend to disagree with you.

http://www.lcme.org/connections/connections_2013-2014/ED-21_2013-2014.htm

 

[cookiemonsters]

The LCME (and US medical schools) tend to disagree with you.

http://www.lcme.org/connections/connections_2013-2014/ED-21_2013-2014.htm

Cultural competency should absolutely be a requirement, but I really do not believe that black or Latino students have some fundamental cultural understanding of their own race that would hinder a white or Asian doctor providing equal or better quality of care. Give me some examples of when a white or Asian physician had problems treating a patient from a different race solely because of a culture differences.

 

[BABSstudent]

Cultural competency should absolutely be a requirement, but I really do not believe that black or Latino students have some fundamental cultural understanding of their own race that a white or Asian doctor would lack. Give me some examples of when a white or Asian physician had problems treating a patient from a different race solely because of a culture differences.

Well that was easy.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=716963

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=388474

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=191132

Those were just the first three articles that popped up when I did an academic journal search for "physician race and patient outcome"

Here is a quote from the last article I listed.

Our data suggest that African American patients rate their visits with physicians as less participatory than whites. However, patients seeing physicians of their own race rate their physicians' decision-making styles as more participatory. Improving cross-cultural communication between primary care physicians and patients and providing patients with access to a diverse group of physicians may lead to more patient involvement in care, higher levels of patient satisfaction, and better health outcomes.

Studies have shown that African Americans and other minority patients often receive differential and less optimal technical health care than white Americans. It is uncertain how much of these racial differences in health care and outcomes can be explained by patient cultural factors, health care professional biases, or health care system biases. Differences in socioeconomic status and health insurance coverage between patients only partially explain the observed racial differences in health care.

Race and ethnicity have been cited as important cultural barriers in patient-physician communication. However, cross-cultural factors in patient-physician communication are largely unexplored. Problems in communication due to cultural differences between patients and physicians often contribute to a disparity in the understanding that patients and physicians have regarding the cause of disease and the effectiveness of available treatments. One study showed some enhancement of communication when physicians and patients belonged to the same ethnic group; however, the match between the physician and patient with respect to the explanatory model of illness and expectations for the visit were equally important in determining outcome.

 

[cookiemonsters]

I wanted stories/anecdotes you would tell others, not boring academic papers. These are all just arbitrary patient surveys.

 

[BABSstudent]

I wanted stories you would tell others, not boring academic papers. These are all just arbitrary patient surveys.

Sadly, my status says medical student. These are the stories I tell others...

 

[ichor]

First of all can we stop saying minorities when we mean blacks and Hispanics? It sounds unbelievable but I've actually heard of people complaining about Asians being so smart and getting affirmative action too -_-

So what does stats have anything to say with how good of a doctor you will be? If you really want that, then the acceptance rates should also increase for high stat people and decrease for the lower numbers.

Personally, I am okay with the way the numbers look. What?!?! This must seem like blasphemy. Let me explain why.

There are huge physician shortages in the United States. Guess what, there really isn't a shortage of white or asian physicians. This means that if you are a white or asian patient and want to see a physician that came from a similar background as you (which happens), then it will be easy to find one. Well, what about immigrants or other groups such as Native Americans or African Americans? I mean, can you really relate to the culture of the Native Americans? I know almost nothing about them despite my school talking heavily about them from 4th grade to 7th grade. The same is true with people in the ghetto, I never grew up there and would never truly understand what it means to live there and the pressures they grow up with.

That's why it is nice to recruit from applicants from those groups. There is a better chance these people will grow up and practice there. This is one way of addressing this disparity.

Also, there are other things like trying to recruit physicians that speak more than one language (for example, Spanish). In this example, there is a fairly large Latino population that only speaks Spanish. Well, for schools that serve these locations it makes sense to recruit students that speak Spanish. This means that students who are bilingual have a higher chance of getting in which is mainly Latino/a applicants. Heck, some schools even have bilingual requirements to apply (see Ponce School of Medicine).

Anyways, and I will probably get flamed for saying this, having the disparity in acceptance rates for the different ethnicity is probably the best for patients. As upset as it makes you, attrition in US medical schools is super low so it isn't like accepting these applicants lowers the caliber of the schools.

I'm Asian and all of my doctors have been white. I can assure you that they did not come from the same background as me. Who cares about the doctors race as long as they're competent?

And if language was really the reason, why not help Asians with affirmative action then? A good deal of Chinese Americans can speak Chinese and considering Spanish is the most commonly taken foreign language, I assume I'm not alone in being an Asian who can speak English, Chinese, and Spanish well. That's the big 3 of languages...all about the patients, right?

 

[BABSstudent]

I'm Asian and all of my doctors have been white. I can assure you that they did not come from the same background as me. Who cares about the doctors race as long as they're competent?

Did you seriously skip the articles that I posted? Check them out, post #19.

 

[ichor]

Did you seriously skip the articles that I posted? Check them out, post #19.

Such a study sounds very subjective anyway...maybe the doctors were not less helpful with minorities, but the minority patients just perceived it like so because of racial differences. It's not a secret that people tend to be comfortable with their own races. How about something more objective like the actual difference in competence of treatment between minority patients and white patients?

And I know it sounds like I'm just beig difficult with you, but the doctors in the study were white. I was talking about Asian doctors. Believe it or not, we're minorities too and we know what it's like to have privilege and opportunity waved in front of our faces.

 

[BABSstudent]

Such a study sounds very subjective anyway...maybe the doctors were not less helpful with minorities, but the minority patients just perceived it like so because of racial differences. It's not a secret that people tend to be comfortable with their own races. How about something more objective like the actual difference in competence of treatment between minority patients and white patients?

And I know it sounds like I'm just beig difficult with you, but the doctors in the study were white. I was talking about Asian doctors. Believe it or not, we're minorities too and we know what it's like to have privilege and opportunity waved in front of our faces.

Here's the thing, it is all about how the patients feel. If they feel like there is a difference between the doctor and them, enough for it to be statistically significant, they might choose to not go to the hospital for something. Their condition may not be treated and what could have been a simple fix could now become an expensive, chronic problem.

And there are more studies out there. Like I said, I grabbed the first three things that popped up. You can look up others and just add limiting words to the search.

 

[SunsFun]

I wanted stories/anecdotes you would tell others, not boring academic papers. These are all just arbitrary patient surveys.

Are you trolling or you seriously think personal anecdotes >> statistical data?

 

[SunsFun]

Different definitions of "better doctor" yes - but if you don't have the knowledge to adequately treat your patients, people skills don't matter.

GPA and MCAT are predictors of your performance in med school and haven't been shown to correlate with anything outside of that to my knowledge. So you can leave your notion of incompetence.

 

[aesculapian]

I'm reluctant to get in on this thread because it's difficult to have a productive conversation about these types of things over the internet, and it's an important topic that deserves to be done justice. Still, better to discuss here than not at all, I guess..

OP, you said "As medical doctors, we are directly involved in the preservation of human life ... When a human life is dangling by a thread, there is little room for error." I totally agree with this. People who are careless with human life should not become doctors. They should also probably stay away from parenting, firefighting, bus driving, etc., etc.

But let's say there's a patient who's obese, a lifelong smoker, diabetic, etc. etc. living in the inner city. You could say that her life is also hanging by a thread, though probably not in the sense you originally meant. Do you think a "crème de la crème" pre-med who grew up in the suburbs, who went to a top private school and then an "upper echelon" university where he/she graduated magna cum laude would have more success in getting this patient to lose weight and quit smoking than a doctor who grew up in a similar neighborhood? Maybe the latter understands that the reason this patient is obese is because that neighborhood is a food desert, and there's no way to get fresh produce, and there's a McDonald's and a liquor store on every corner. This patient is so far removed from the ivy-encrusted walls of higher learning that she thinks there's no way a hot-shot doctor could ever understand where she comes from. That kind of disconnect is not conducive to health care.

This is an extreme example, obviously, but there's some truth in it. The point I'm trying to reiterate, which has already been made in previous posts, is that keeping the medical profession restricted to your so-called "crème de la crème" leaves appalling gaps in treating all patients.

I think you're also assuming that a low GPA means that a doctor is more likely to make a grievous and fatal error in like, medication dosage or something. But I don't think getting a C in Orgo automatically translates into me or you being a careless physician, or precludes that fact that I'm going to work as hard as I possibly can to excel in med school.

 

[Womb Raider]

...they might choose to not go to the hospital for something. Their condition may not be treated and what could have been a simple fix could now become an expensive, chronic problem.

This happens all the time, even when patients have doctors of the same race. If someone is REALLY concerned that something is wrong with them, they're going to tell their doctor regardless of their gender/race. If they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves. Medicine has always involved communicating awkward & very personal information to another person, this will never go away. Just because the doctor is from the same background as you, or is the same color, doesn't do much to mitigate that embarrassment.

------
I also don't like the "we need black doctors for black patients" and "white doctors for white patients" argument. How far are you going to take this? If 95% of the American population was black would you want 95% of physicians to be black? That's essentially what you're saying.

 

[SunsFun]

This happens all the time, even when patients have doctors of the same race. If someone is REALLY concerned that something is wrong with them, they're going to tell their doctor regardless of their gender/race. If they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves. Medicine has always involved communicating awkward & very personal information to another person, this will never go away. Just because the doctor is from the same background as you, or is the same color, doesn't do much to mitigate that embarrassment.

------
I also don't like the "we need black doctors for black patients" and "white doctors for white patients" argument. How far are you going to take this? If 95% of the American population was black would you want 95% of physicians to be black? That's essentially what you're saying.

So lets blame the patient for not being proactive enough and not following the instructions because he or she doesn't feel the connection to a doctor. You just proved his point dude. I've seen doctors blaming patients all the time just like I have seen teachers blaming students for not wanting to learn. The more removed a doctor is from the population he is serving the less success he will have getting patients to do what he wants them to do no matter how high his MCAT and GPA were. We want effective doctors and blaming patient makes you a crappy doctor no matter how you look at it.

 

[Grom]

What annoys me about these threads is how so many defenders of Affirmative Action always justify it with SES arguments. SES and race are different things, and SES can be assessed directly. If we're arguing on the basis of SES, there's no point using race as a proxy.

I think you're also assuming that a low GPA means that a doctor is more likely to make a grievous and fatal error in like, medication dosage or something. But I don't think getting a C in Orgo automatically translates into me or you being a careless physician, or precludes that fact that I'm going to work as hard as I possibly can to excel in med school.

But I don't think (being white or asian) automatically translates into me or you being (from a wealthy, advantaged background), or precludes that fact that I'm going to (practice in an underserved community or have certain cultural competencies,etc).

There are no guarantees, but there are trends and it goes both ways.

 

[Womb Raider]

This is an extreme example, obviously, but there's some truth in it. The point I'm trying to reiterate, which has already been made in previous posts, is that keeping the medical profession restricted to your so-called "crème de la crème" leaves appalling gaps in treating all patients.

So lets blame the patient for not being proactive enough and not following the instructions because he or she doesn't feel the connection to a doctor. You just proved his point dude. I've seen doctors blaming patients all the time just like I have seen teachers blaming students for not wanting to learn. The more removed a doctor is from the population he is serving the less success he will have getting patients to do what he wants them to do no matter how high his MCAT and GPA were. We want effective doctors and blaming patient makes you a crappy doctor no matter how you look at it.

I agree with you to some extent. However, as previously mentioned, there is absolutely NO guarantee that A) these minority doctors will practice in environments that have a high density of their minority and B) they can relate to the patient better than another doctor of a different ethnicity.

When a doctor is fondling my balls, I don't ever feel comfortable. That won't change whether the doctor is black, white, asian, spanish, man or woman. The whole reason people come to the doctor is because they're sick - they should expect awkward conversations. I agree that communicating and connecting with your physician is an extremely vital component in providing the best care possible, but it is impossible to predict how well a doctor will connect with a patient based on the current admissions standards. (I don't think it will ever be predictable enough for admissions..).

Is it fair to give minorities an advantage of acceptance based on this CHANCE?

I think you're also assuming that a low GPA means that a doctor is more likely to make a grievous and fatal error in like, medication dosage or something. But I don't think getting a C in Orgo automatically translates into me or you being a careless physician, or precludes that fact that I'm going to work as hard as I possibly can to excel in med school.

A bad GPA/MCAT certainly does not automatically make you bad at anything. Extremes are never relevant, but someone that is able to make a good MCAT score/GPA is more likely to be able to handle the extremely steep learning curve of medicine and cope with the high work load in medical school. If these things don't matter, why don't we allow Justin Bieber, Lindsay Lohan and Steve-O into medical school?

 

[ChemEngMD]

I wish white people could just take back America.

^^This guy I'm sure the Native Americans feel the same way about the Whites

It's ironic that Europeans came and massacred the Natives, took their land, and claimed sovereignty over a whole continent, and now these mixed race (mostly with Native) Latinos are showing up and changing the demographics and White people feel they are losing a land that they acquired through genocide in the first place.


I'm not going to get into this argument cause it pops up literally every 3 days and nobody ever really pays attention to the POV of the URM so hey, keep doing your thing people I think it's healthy to discuss these things...hopefully misconceptions of the purpose and reality of these issues can be cleared up through them

 

[SunsFun]

I agree with you to some extent. However, as previously mentioned, there is absolutely NO guarantee that A) these minority doctors will practice in environments that have a high density of their minority and B) they can relate to the patient better than another doctor of a different ethnicity.

When a doctor is fondling my balls, I don't ever feel comfortable. That won't change whether the doctor is black, white, asian, spanish, man or woman. The whole reason people come to the doctor is because they're sick - they should expect awkward conversations. I agree that communicating and connecting with your physician is an extremely vital component in providing the best care possible, but it is impossible to predict how well a doctor will connect with a patient based on the current admissions standards. (I don't think it will ever be predictable enough for admissions..).

Is it fair to give minorities an advantage of acceptance based on this CHANCE?

It's not a chance. The study brought up earlier shows a pattern. Getting doctors of the same race/ethnicities IS more likely to produce the effects we are looking for. This has been shown with the research available. So the admission committee is simply maximizing the chance of a desired outcome.

 

[striker15]

I agree with you to some extent. However, as previously mentioned, there is absolutely NO guarantee that A) these minority doctors will practice in environments that have a high density of their minority

So are you saying just because someone is a minority then one has to guarantee that you will work in areas with a high density of minorities? Wow way to segregate minority physicians. You really thought this one through.

 

[yehhhboiii]

Are you trolling or you seriously think personal anecdotes >> statistical data?

son, statistics say whatever you want them to say

 

[SunsFun]

son, statistics say whatever you want them to say

I agree you can find flaws in the data and slice and dice it anyway you want to but it certainly tell you more than a personal anecdote (cool story bro).

 

[ChemEngMD]

How much of a benefit is it in society or in applying to medical school to be a minority? Cause if you want to talk societal, it is much harder to even get to the point where you can apply to medical school as a Black, Latino or Native American (i.e. getting to college and being able to have all of the connections and pull the strings to be ready to apply). When it comes time to apply for med school, URMs on average have lower stats, but that is because there aren't as many of us applying in the first place.

The AMCAS data shows that COMBINED (Black, Latino, Native) over a 3 year period, there were only 21,000 of us applying...over that same period there were over 80,000 Whites and nearly 30,000 Asians. Our acceptance rates were still the lowest though ~44% for URMs, 44.5% for Asians, and 47.7% for Whites. So you're talking about a subset of the population (URMs) that make up ~30+% of the population only making up ~16% of the applicants. If they are trying to make classes representative of their local populations then they may be shooting to have 20-30% of their class be URM, but if only 10-15% of their applicants are URM then they will inherently have to dip a little further into the pool and give some applicants who may be statistically lower, but still have a great overall app, a shot.

So the answer is yes, on average URMs have overall lower stats, and thus some students get accepted with lower than usual stats, but Whites and Asians still make up the majority of the applicants and still have higher acceptance rates. This isn't even taking into account the schools in PR that account for probably 1/4 of the Latino acceptances in the country each year or the HBCU universities that account for a decent percentage of the accepted Blacks. Both of these schools have on average lower statistics because they have different missions (i.e. finding physicians that will serve underserved communities, be it in Puerto Rico or urban settings). If you were to remove some of those statistical outliers you would see a much lower acceptance rate for URMs and probably higher stats for the students who do get accepted.

Don't believe the hype.

Posted this in a thread back on July 21st about the same topic. Think about it.

 

[Helixkam]

I'm an ORM from the inner city originally lol. But we all gotta work with what we have I suppose.

 

[Womb Raider]

So are you saying just because someone is a minority then one has to guarantee that you will work in areas with a high density of minorities? Wow way to segregate minority physicians. You really thought this one through.

Lol... I'm saying if that's the only reason a medical school chooses you over someone intellectually superior and more qualified, then hell yes.

When we attend medical school everyone is given a fair chance at choosing their specialty and working where they want. So, when you use the argument "we need x minority to treat x minority patients in x underserved area" - it doesn't work. Many of these minority physicians won't choose to work there anyway. When this happens, the medical school produces doctors that are often much less competent than they should be.

Again, this isn't always the case and it also happens with physicians that had high GPA/MCAT - but much less often.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Lol... I'm saying if that's the only reason a medical school chooses you over someone intellectually superior and more qualified, then hell yes.

When we attend medical school everyone is given a fair chance at choosing their specialty and working where they want. So, when you use the argument "we need x minority to treat x minority patients in x underserved area" - it doesn't work. Many of these minority physicians won't choose to work there anyway. When this happens, the medical school produces doctors that are often much less competent than they should be.

Again, this isn't always the case and it also happens with physicians that had high GPA/MCAT - but much less often.

Bold statement, bro. Higher MCAT+GPA does not = intellectually superior... don't tread down that trail, all is lost if you go that way

 

[SunsFun]

Lol... I'm saying if that's the only reason a medical school chooses you over someone intellectually superior and more qualified, then hell yes.

When we attend medical school everyone is given a fair chance at choosing their specialty and working where they want. So, when you use the argument "we need x minority to treat x minority patients in x underserved area" - it doesn't work. Many of these minority physicians won't choose to work there anyway. When this happens, the medical school produces doctors that are often much less competent than they should be.

Again, this isn't always the case and it also happens with physicians that had high GPA/MCAT - but much less often.

Since when higher MCAT/GPA = intellectually superior, more qualified, and more competent as DOCTORS?

Link, please.

I am not asking about performance in school here.

 

[Womb Raider]

Bold statement, bro. Higher MCAT+GPA does not = intellectually superior... don't tread down that trail, all is lost if you go that way

Medical schools assess their applicants intellect and capacity to learn by analyzing their MCAT scores and GPA's. This is what I am referring to. The two of these combined have been proven to be useful predictors of how well one does in medical school and step scores. Intelligent people usually do better in those areas than less intelligent people. Sure, you can be a genius and have a horrible GPA and MCAT. Sure you can have high step scores and be a horrible doctor. However, this is not the norm.

Intelligence is mandatory for becoming a physician. Do you propose a superior method of filtering out people incapable of exhibiting the necessary intellectual requirements? There are MANY other fields that help people that do not require the harsh academic requirements of a physician.

 

[ChemEngMD]

Medical schools assess their applicants intellect and capacity to learn by analyzing their MCAT scores and GPA's. This is what I am referring to. The two of these combined have been proven to be useful predictors of how well one does in medical school and step scores. Intelligent people usually do better in those areas than less intelligent people. Sure, you can be a genius and have a horrible GPA and MCAT. Sure you can have high step scores and be a horrible doctor. However, this is not the norm.

Intelligence is mandatory for becoming a physician. Do you propose a superior method of filtering out people incapable of exhibiting the necessary intellectual requirements? There are MANY other fields that help people that do not require the harsh academic requirements of a physician.

My point is simply that it has been proven for years that standardized tests favor people from certain backgrounds (mainly those of the test makers) and there was even a study that showed that institutionalized stereotypes affect test taking outcomes....when black students and white students were given a test and it was called a test, white students performed much better but when given the exact same test and it was said to be looking at natural intellectual abilities the scores of blacks and whites were nearly identical.

Understanding the complexities of being a URM in higher education may help you start to understand the problem at hand with equating GPA and standardized test results to one's intellectual superiority.

I know its hard for hard science people to wrap their heads around the social sciences sometimes, but the studies speak for themselves.

 

[jaybird117]

Since when higher MCAT/GPA = intellectually superior, more qualified, and more competent as DOCTORS?

I believe that the MCAT is quite correlated to USMLE results. How well the MCAT is correlated to bedside manner, well...

"Distance travelled" is a real and legitimate measure, that, I am convinced of. That means, though, that a poor, inner-city white applicant should be considered more favourably than a well-off black applicant, all else being equal.

 

[Goro]

Medical schools could easily fill their seats with 4.0 automatons. BUT, we want to train people who will be good doctors, not merely have good students.

**I would like to preface this by saying that this is a legitimate post and I am in no way trying to troll or start a war. I searched for this topic and only found posts by banned members with no serious discussion. I am not complaining.**

I would like to discuss the statistics regarding the acceptance rate based on gpa/MCAT located HERE (specifically the graphs based on ethnicity).

I knew there were different acceptance rates based on one's ethnicity - but I had no idea the chasm was this substantial. In some cases the chance of getting accepted is nearly 4x higher depending which ethnicity you are.

I would like to start a discussion on whether or not you guys agree with the current method of acceptance (involving the data in the link above).

As medical doctors, we are directly involved in the preservation of human life - arguably the most important vocation of our race. When a human life is dangling by a thread, there is little room for error. Doctors are not like mechanics - we cannot (usually..) order a new part and try again if we fail.

As such, should the field of medicine limit their recruitment solely to the upper echelon of pre-medical students or the "crème de la crème" if you will? Should we completely remove the gender and ethnicity "checkboxes" on applications? Thoughts?

I understand that there are *many* qualities that contribute to being a good physician, qualities that far surpass GPA and MCAT scores. However, it is my understanding that those stats are currently the best predictors for medical schools to evaluate applicants and I honestly don't see that changing anytime soon.

So what do you guys think? I would love to hear some thoughts, maybe other perspectives explaining why the current system is the way it is.

 

[SunsFun]

I believe that the MCAT is quite correlated to USMLE results. How well the MCAT is correlated to bedside manner, well...

"Distance travelled" is a real and legitimate measure, that, I am convinced of. That means, though, that a poor, inner-city white applicant should be considered more favourably than a well-off black applicant, all else being equal.

All else is never equal. The patients themselves are more "open" to docs from of similar race/ethnicity. Call it what you want but we have to respect their wishes above all unless you believe in paternalistic medicine, in which case you will have a hard time practicing in US.

And don't forget that URM have to jump through many additional hoops regardless of income comparing to white applicants.

 

[yehhhboiii]

people want doctors who can empathize and talk to them about their illness. they want doctors to hold their hand, explain things carefully to them and show that they care. no one wants someone whose conversational abilities are aspergers level

 

[ChemEngMD]

people want doctors who can empathize and talk to them about their illness. they want doctors to hold their hand, explain things carefully to them and show that they care. no one wants someone whose conversational abilities are aspergers level

+1

I had to get shoulder surgeries a few years back and the first surgeon I went to was a straight robot...he didn't even talk to me he just spoke into his voice recorder as he asked my pain level for the different shoulder positions...he was obviously brilliant, but terrible at helping the patient.

I left him and went to another orthopedic surgeon who was much more personable and who I trusted to cut into my body and try and repair my torn up shoulders. It's hard to trust someone who treats you like a piece of meat or a lab experiment.

 

[Runican]

Medical schools assess their applicants intellect and capacity to learn by analyzing their MCAT scores and GPA's. This is what I am referring to. The two of these combined have been proven to be useful predictors of how well one does in medical school and step scores. Intelligent people usually do better in those areas than less intelligent people. Sure, you can be a genius and have a horrible GPA and MCAT. Sure you can have high step scores and be a horrible doctor. However, this is not the norm.

Intelligence is mandatory for becoming a physician. Do you propose a superior method of filtering out people incapable of exhibiting the necessary intellectual requirements? There are MANY other fields that help people that do not require the harsh academic requirements of a physician.

But what level of intelligence is "enough" to make a good doctor? Obviously not all doctors need to be geniuses. Suppose there were enough people with a GPA > 3.8 and MCAT > 35 to fill all the spots in every US MD school. Does that mean that someone with a 3.6 and 33 MCAT is too stupid to be a doctor?

Each medical school makes its own determination on who is "intelligent" enough. It's not like Harvard is rejecting a bunch of 3.8/35 ORMs in favor of 2.5/20 URMs. Every medical school only wants to accept students that can succeed, and won't accept unqualified applicants regardless of their race.