harder for Asians to get into med school?

[milliya]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Cause if they did, then that would DECREASE the amount of blacks in medicine. I think they are looking at the bigger picture.

very true, yet its not something i LIKE seeing.

 

[Femme Fatale]

*

 

[TheRealMD]

I'm going to repeat this again just so people understand. The only way to truly get rid of AA is to fix the US public school system. Unfortunately, we do not live in a fairytale land where you through money at a problem and it gets fixed.

As for ensuring that those disadvantaged students who apply and were to get in on condition that they go back to their community... I'd say most people would actually want to get out of that for the sheer reason that most people when they enter med school have no idea what they want to do for the rest of their life on the first day. You're asking those "conditionally" accepted people to do the same thing. It's not a solution at all.

 

[drizzt3117]

That's absolutely ludicrous to ask someone to commit to a field or face rejection. Why do URM have to serve rural areas or inner cities. They should decide what they want to do.

It's not really that ludicrous when you think about it. It's exactly what programs like RURAL-PRIME in CA and some other programs are doing, giving a somewhat easier path towards becoming a physician in return for somewhat of a commitment to serving the community that you claim to want to serve.

I don't have a problem with URMs getting preference if they show a commitment to serving underserved populations, and I don't have a problem with them going into whatever field they want, but I don't think they should get a preference outside of their socioeconomic status/disadvantaged status if they don't show such a commitment through their actions/PS.

 

[milliya]

It's not really that ludicrous when you think about it. It's exactly what programs like RURAL-PRIME in CA and some other programs are doing, giving a somewhat easier path towards becoming a physician in return for somewhat of a commitment to serving the community that you claim to want to serve.

I don't have a problem with URMs getting preference if they show a commitment to serving underserved populations, and I don't have a problem with them going into whatever field they want, but I don't think they should get a preference outside of their socioeconomic status/disadvantaged status if they don't show such a commitment through their actions/PS.

i think thats a terrible thing to say! URMs don't OWE anyone anything. why should they be obligated to serve the socioeconomic background that they've been bound to for so long? EVERYONE deserves a preference.

 

[drizzt3117]

i think thats a terrible thing to say! URMs don't OWE anyone anything. why should they be obligated to serve the socioeconomic background that they've been bound to for so long? EVERYONE deserves a preference.

I said in my post that they should have no such obligation to do so, but should receive preference in admission if they show a commitment to do so through their actions (i.e. PS/ECs). The goals of AA are to increase the diversity of medical school classes (which it already accomplishes) but also to increase service to underserved populations (which it has certainly helped in, but could do a better job).

As I said in my above post, this will help outcomes (because of the physician ethnicity issue) in the case of underserved populations.

I think disadvantaged students of all races should receive special consideration that take their socioeconomic status into consideration.

BTW, jochi, the reason why the outcomes were better when the ethnicity of the physician was the same as the patient had to do with familiarity to a small degree but my guess was that the biggest reason was primarily language in respect to Hispanic URMs.

 

[milliya]

I said in my post that they should have no such obligation to do so, but should receive preference in admission if they show a commitment to do so through their actions (i.e. PS/ECs). The goals of AA are to increase the diversity of medical school classes (which it already accomplishes) but also to increase service to underserved populations (which it has certainly helped in, but could do a better job).

As I said in my above post, this will help outcomes (because of the physician ethnicity issue) in the case of underserved populations.

I think disadvantaged students of all races should receive special consideration that take their socioeconomic status into consideration.

BTW, jochi, the reason why the outcomes were better when the ethnicity of the physician was the same as the patient had to do with familiarity to a small degree but my guess was that the biggest reason was primarily language in respect to Hispanic URMs.

you said that you DONT think URMs should get a preference outside of their socioeconomic status. its right there! and i'm saying that i fervently disagree.

i also disagree that disadvantaged students should recieve "special consideration" that takes into consideration their socioeconomic status (which you also said).

i think those two statements that you made are unfair. you are taking disadvantaged students and making them disadvantaged doctors that way.

 

[AlexMorph]

you said that you DONT think URMs should get a preference outside of their socioeconomic status. its right there! and i'm saying that i fervently disagree.

i also disagree that disadvantaged students should recieve "special consideration" that takes into consideration their socioeconomic status (which you also said).

i think those two statements that you made are unfair. you are taking disadvantaged students and making them disadvantaged doctors that way.

So, according to you, disadvantaged people shouldn't be given an advantage because they wouldn't be disadvantaged otherwise. That makes no sense to me. That would just result in a bigger divide in this nation between the health care industry and the needs of the poor, which is already rather appalling.

 

[Revenant]

So, according to you, disadvantaged people shouldn't be given an advantage because they wouldn't be disadvantaged otherwise. That makes no sense to me. That would just result in a bigger divide in this nation between the health care industry and the needs of the poor, which is already rather appalling.

Clearly the only route is screwing the poor over even more than we already do in this country...

At least...according to some...

 

[drizzt3117]

you said that you DONT think URMs should get a preference outside of their socioeconomic status. its right there! and i'm saying that i fervently disagree.

I said that I don't think they shouldn't get preference outside of their socioeconomic status if they don't show a commitment towards serving underserved populations.

i also disagree that disadvantaged students should recieve "special consideration" that takes into consideration their socioeconomic status (which you also said).

Special consideration means preference in admission i.e. their circumstances are taken into account when considering their test scores. That's a good thing if you're looking to be admitted. That's pretty much the way things are right now, you don't agree with that? I simply think poor/disadvantaged students of any race should be given special consideration.

i think those two statements that you made are unfair. you are taking disadvantaged students and making them disadvantaged doctors that way.

Excuse me?

First of all, under the system I'm describing all disadvantaged students would receive special consideration regardless of race. In addition, those URM students that show a commitment to serving underserved populations would receive additional preference regardless of their SES/disadvantaged status.

Yes it means that non-disadvantaged URMs with medium/high SES that don't show a commitment to serving underserved populations would be treated the same as non-URMs with medium/high SES.

Are you arguing that a upper/middle class URM that wants to be a plastic surgeon should have preference over a Cambodian student that grew up in a refugee camp that wants to help underserved populations and had to work 30 hours a week during undergrad to feed their 5 siblings?

 

[milliya]

So, according to you, disadvantaged people shouldn't be given an advantage because they wouldn't be disadvantaged otherwise. That makes no sense to me. That would just result in a bigger divide in this nation between the health care industry and the needs of the poor, which is already rather appalling.

no they should be given an advantage, there just shouldn't be a stipulation. it shouldnt be..."oh we'll help you if you agree to practice in these socioeconomic areas" thats not fair.

 

[F12]

America revolves around a capitalist system that must maintain an underclass of people. The capitalist system keeps people from transcending poverty to provide corporate entities with "surplus labor". Unfortunately, it is mostly minorities that will be victimized by this system. Our government is OK with allocating $60,000 a year to house an inmate while inner city school children are allocated only $7500 a year for their education.

LMAO.

Do you actually believe this, or are you just miming Marx for the day?

 

[Revenant]

no they should be given an advantage, there just shouldn't be a stipulation. it shouldnt be..."oh we'll help you if you agree to practice in these socioeconomic areas" thats not fair.

Define fair.

 

[drizzt3117]

no they should be given an advantage, there just shouldn't be a stipulation. it shouldnt be..."oh we'll help you if you agree to practice in these socioeconomic areas" thats not fair.

I'm proposing they get an advantage first based on their SES and secondly based on a commitment to serving underserved populations. They don't even have to follow through on that commitment, it's just from looking at their ECs/PS anyways. As someone said earlier, Meharry matches people into plastic surgery. That said, a URM student that did volunteering and community service with underserved populations is still more likely to help in those communities although cynical people would suggest they'd only be doing so to gain preference in admissions.

I'm not sure there's any way to even enforce that kind of stipulation, although there is some precedence for that in financial aid, with those students looking to pursue careers in primary care being eligible for low interest loans that greatly increase in interest rate if they choose not to go into PC.

 

[TheRealMD]

I said that I don't think they shouldn't get preference outside of their socioeconomic status if they don't show a commitment towards serving underserved populations.



Special consideration means preference in admission i.e. their circumstances are taken into account when considering their test scores. That's a good thing if you're looking to be admitted. That's pretty much the way things are right now, you don't agree with that? I simply think poor/disadvantaged students of any race should be given special consideration.



Excuse me?

First of all, under the system I'm describing all disadvantaged students would receive special consideration regardless of race. In addition, those URM students that show a commitment to serving underserved populations would receive additional preference regardless of their SES/disadvantaged status.

Yes it means that non-disadvantaged URMs with medium/high SES that don't show a commitment to serving underserved populations would be treated the same as non-URMs with medium/high SES.


Are you arguing that a upper/middle class URM that wants to be a plastic surgeon should have preference over a Cambodian student that grew up in a refugee camp that wants to help underserved populations and had to work 30 hours a week during undergrad to feed their 5 siblings?

No admissions office is that stupid, otherwise I think that there's not much hope for any of us. However, said person should NOT get in if they are unlikely to finish med school. There's a point where you can lower standards too low.

As for trying to question what motives people might have? I'm not sure med schools will ever get a straight answer on that.

 

[F12]

no they should be given an advantage, there just shouldn't be a stipulation. it shouldnt be..."oh we'll help you if you agree to practice in these socioeconomic areas" thats not fair.

It should be either-or:

The advantage would be given if the minority applicant chooses to go "serve the underserved."
The advantage would not be given if the minority applicant chooses not to "serve the underserved."

Why? The whole purpose of affirmative action is to increase physician diversity to ensure that doctors will serve in underseved areas. Anything else is basically racial discrimination.

Arguments that "URMs are at a disadvantage and need a compensatory boost in admissions" are inherently racist as well, as all races are heterogeneous with regard to upbringing and/or socioeconomic status.

 

[milliya]

I said that I don't think they shouldn't get preference outside of their socioeconomic status if they don't show a commitment towards serving underserved populations.

yes i got that and once again i disagree. no one HAS to show a commitment toward undeserved populations. maybe someone who came from that background doesn't want to deal with that enviornment.

Special consideration means preference in admission i.e. their circumstances are taken into account when considering their test scores. That's a good thing if you're looking to be admitted. That's pretty much the way things are right now, you don't agree with that? I simply think poor/disadvantaged students of any race should be given special consideration.

i don't completely agree with this, but this it not really the issue i was getting at. the quote below this holds more stock with me.

First of all, under the system I'm describing all disadvantaged students would receive special consideration regardless of race. In addition, those URM students that show a commitment to serving underserved populations would receive additional preference regardless of their SES/disadvantaged status.

Yes it means that non-disadvantaged URMs with medium/high SES that don't show a commitment to serving underserved populations would be treated the same as non-URMs with medium/high SES.

yes this is the part that i dont agree with. i already explained why, even though technically i owe no explination. cant i just say i disagree with something without having my head bitten off?

Are you arguing that a upper/middle class URM that wants to be a plastic surgeon should have preference over a Cambodian student that grew up in a refugee camp that wants to help underserved populations and had to work 30 hours a week during undergrad to feed their 5 siblings?

no, i'm sayin that a URM and a Cambodian who both grew up in the lower class should be given the same preference regardless of who intends to help what populations after they recieve their degrees.

 

[drizzt3117]

It should be either-or:

The advantage would be given if the minority applicant chooses to go "serve the underserved."
The advantage would not be given if the minority applicant chooses not to "serve the underserved."

Why? The whole purpose of affirmative action is to increase physician diversity to ensure that doctors will serve in underseved areas. Anything else is basically racial discrimination.

Arguments that "URMs are at a disadvantage and need a compensatory boost in admissions" are inherently racist as well, as all races are heterogeneous with regard to upbringing and/or socioeconomic status.

This is harsher than my proposal but is probably a defensible position. I'm simply saying that those URMs that seem like they're interested in serving underserved populations through their actions should receive preference, while everyone who is disadvantaged/low SES should receive preference as well. On the average, URMs are of lower SES, meaning they'll benefit from the second criteria more so than other races.

 

[drizzt3117]

no, i'm sayin that a URM and a Cambodian who both grew up in the lower class should be given the same preference regardless of who intends to help what populations after they recieve their degrees.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Cambodians aren't considered URM, but you're saying if they're poor they should be given the same consideration as URMs?

My problem with the whole situation is that there are two axes, SES and ethnicity.

Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting the following order of preference (from greatest to least)

poor URM > rich URM = poor non-URM > rich non-URM

My question is why middle/upper class URMs that aren't interested in helping the underserved deserve preference over non-URMs with similar SES. I actually don't even have a problem with them having some preference purely in the interests of diversity, but I guess I just don't see that it's really helping to solve the problem of underserved URM populations, which should be at least ONE of the goals of the AA process IMO.

 

[F12]

This is harsher than my proposal but is probably a defensible position. I'm simply saying that those URMs that seem like they're interested in serving underserved populations through their actions should receive preference, while everyone who is disadvantaged/low SES should receive preference as well. On the average, URMs are of lower SES, meaning they'll benefit from the second criteria more so than other races.

I see where you're coming from. You're proposing that Low SES = URM, but with an additional boost for URMs who want to serve the underserved. This way, everyone from a low income background background gets a shot.

I was (hypothetically) proposing a way to increase the efficiency of URM-based minority admissions from the standpoint of increasing recruitment of those who would serve in an underserved area. My underlying assumption was that a person with lower stats should only get into medical school if they are willing to serve the underserved.

 

[F12]

My question is why middle/upper class URMs that aren't interested in helping the underserved deserve preference over non-URMs with similar SES. I actually don't even have a problem with them having some preference purely in the interests of diversity, but I guess I just don't see that it's really helping to solve the problem of underserved URM populations, which should be at least ONE of the goals of the AA process IMO.

Exactly. I don't see why they deserve preference, either.

I have several "URM" friends who come from wealthy backgrounds (e.g. Black guy with Doctor parents from Nigeria, a Hispanic guy with rich parents who immigrated from Argentina) and were able to get into elite medical schools with seemingly average stats.

 

[drizzt3117]

I see where you're coming from. You're proposing that Low SES = URM, but with an additional boost for URMs who want to serve the underserved. This way, everyone from a low income background background gets a shot.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm proposing, although the bar for the additional URM status would be relatively low and not a box you checked, but simply something adcoms determined by looking at PS/ECs.

The way I see it is that if you have two candidates that are exactly the same in terms of stats/ECs/SES/PS it's likely they are going to more similar than different, regardless of their ethnicity.

Then again, if you have a URM candidate that consistently shows desire to help the underserved through volunteering/community service and in their PS, then there is additional value for a number of reasons which I have outlined in earlier posts.

 

[BigRedPremed]

You guys are only thinking in terms of what's best for the health care system. That's only half the equation. The other half is that med schools need URMs simply to bolster their demographics and class pictures. In this day and age, it's just not acceptable to present a class that is 50% white and 49% asian. Any system other than the system we have now (where URMs get an enormous boost regardless of socioeconomic status or background) will cause URM numbers to absolutely plummet. We all saw what happened in CA law schools when AA was outlawed. There simply aren't enough URMs with semi-qualified stats.

Currently, URM's flunk out of med school at roughly 4-6x the rate of non-URM's. Med schools are fine with this because they want to promote diversity at all costs. They will be reluctant to change to any system that will cause a drop in the percentage of URM's. The system that you guys are promoting definitely will do this because the rich-URM's will be phased out in favor of poor ORMs who are interested in working with the underserved. Med schools simply aren't interested in such a plan because they've shown that they are willing to compromise a lot for the sake of diversity.

 

[HumidBeing]

This is the first time that I have ever seen a thread, discussion, or debate on a hot topic change anyone's mind. I've believed that they're a waste of time because people tend to just dig their heels in. The mind that was changed was mine, btw.

Until tonight, I was a firm supporter, the strongest supporter I knew for AA, but whether I agree with everything that's been said, or not, convincing points have been made. In order to affect a change in society, it does make sense to shift the support and incentives away from being based on race - ethnicity - gender to SES - hardship - handicap because that's where the most difference can be made.

Thanks to those of you have held a civil discourse on the subject. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

 

[milliya]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Cambodians aren't considered URM, but you're saying if they're poor they should be given the same consideration as URMs?

yes

My problem with the whole situation is that there are two axes, SES and ethnicity.

this is true

Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but you seem to be suggesting the following order of preference (from greatest to least)

poor URM > rich URM = poor non-URM > rich non-URM

yeah something like this i guess. i personally think SES is more important than diversity, but diversity seems to be what schools are going for.

My question is why middle/upper class URMs that aren't interested in helping the underserved deserve preference over non-URMs with similar SES.

i'm not saying that. i'm saying they deserve the same preference. AND that it shouldnt matter which group of people you choose to help.

 

[F12]

You guys are only thinking in terms of what's best for the health care system. That's only half the equation. The other half is that med schools need URMs simply to bolster their demographics and class pictures. In this day and age, it's just not acceptable to present a class that is 50% white and 49% asian. Any system other than the system we have now (where URMs get an enormous boost regardless of socioeconomic status or background) will cause URM numbers to absolutely plummet. We all saw what happened in CA law schools when AA was outlawed. There simply aren't enough URMs with semi-qualified stats.

Currently, URM's flunk out of med school at roughly 4-6x the rate of non-URM's. Med schools are fine with this because they want to promote diversity at all costs. They will be reluctant to change to any system that will cause a drop in the percentage of URM's. The system that you guys are promoting definitely will do this because the rich-URM's will be phased out in favor of poor ORMs who are interested in working with the underserved. Med schools simply aren't interested in such a plan because they've shown that they are willing to compromise a lot for the sake of diversity.

This is what baffles me. Why is diversity an end onto itself? Is it so the med school can have a "politically correct" medical school class? I thought we were supposed to be color-blind.

 

[milliya]

You guys are only thinking in terms of what's best for the health care system. That's only half the equation. The other half is that med schools need URMs simply to bolster their demographics and class pictures. In this day and age, it's just not acceptable to present a class that is 50% white and 49% asian. Any system other than the system we have now (where URMs get an enormous boost regardless of socioeconomic status or background) will cause URM numbers to absolutely plummet. We all saw what happened in CA law schools when AA was outlawed. There simply aren't enough URMs with semi-qualified stats.

Currently, URM's flunk out of med school at roughly 4-6x the rate of non-URM's. Med schools are fine with this because they want to promote diversity at all costs. They will be reluctant to change to any system that will cause a drop in the percentage of URM's. The system that you guys are promoting definitely will do this because the rich-URM's will be phased out in favor of poor ORMs who are interested in working with the underserved. Med schools simply aren't interested in such a plan because they've shown that they are willing to compromise a lot for the sake of diversity.

good point

 

[milliya]

Is it so the med school can have a "politically correct" medical school class?

yes, i think that is why. i tought we were supposed to be color blind as well, thats why i think SES deserves more preference with the adcom (as opposed to race)

 

[drizzt3117]

i'm not saying that. i'm saying they deserve the same preference. AND that it shouldnt matter which group of people you choose to help.

Ok wait. What you just said is the following.

Person A is URM and poor, Person B is non-URM and poor, they deserve the same preference.

Person C is URM and rich, Person D is non- URM and rich, they deserve the same preference.

This is a completely non-AA situation that is solely based on SES. From your previous comments, you seemed to support AA, so I must be misinterpreting the point you're trying to make.

My opinion is that the system should be based on SES, but URMs should get additional preference for wanting to help underserved. The reason I believe that is for outcome reasons.

One other disturbing consequence I found in my data was that once SES was removed from the analysis completely, the health care quality of life outcomes were as such:

White > Asian > Black > Hispanic

The difference between white patients and the minority groups was much larger than the differences between each individual minority group.

My contention is that these differences in outcomes are due to a number of factors, including cultural sensitivity, social support, language, and other non-SES factors, but my primary motivation for wanting additional minority doctors serving underserved populations is because of this gap in outcomes.

 

[HumidBeing]

"I'm not saying that. i'm saying they deserve the same preference. AND that it shouldnt matter which group of people you choose to help"

So, you're saying it should be based only on SES, not ethnicity?

edt: Never mind. A batch of posts went up before I hit submit. Point clarified.

 

[jr doctor in sd]

The answer is no it is not.

 

[BigRedPremed]

This is what baffles me. Why is diversity an end onto itself? Is it so the med school can have a "politically correct" medical school class? I thought we were supposed to be color-blind.

Unfortunately, this appears to be the case. URMs may be underrepresented in med school classes but they certainly aren't underrepresented in those pictures on med school websites. Med schools love to show off their "diversity" and pretty much the only diversity that shows in a photo is racial diversity.

 

[milliya]

Ok wait. What you just said is the following.

Person A is URM and poor, Person B is non-URM and poor, they deserve the same preference.

Person C is URM and rich, Person D is non- URM and rich, they deserve the same preference.

This is a completely non-AA situation that is solely based on SES. From your previous comments, you seemed to support AA, so I must be misinterpreting the point you're trying to make.

My opinion is that the system should be based on SES, but URMs should get additional preference for wanting to help underserved. The reason I believe that is for outcome reasons.

One other disturbing consequence I found in my data was that once SES was removed from the analysis completely, the health care quality of life outcomes were as such:

White > Asian > Black > Hispanic

The difference between white patients and the minority groups was much larger than the differences between each individual minority group.

My contention is that these differences in outcomes are due to a number of factors, including cultural sensitivity, social support, language, and other non-SES factors, but my primary motivation for wanting additional diversity in HC is because of this gap in outcomes.

thats exactly what i'm saying. i can see how you might have thought that i was in favor of AA. that was because when i first joined the convo, no one had brought up SES (at least not in the train i was following). i was sort of playing devils advocate up there.

Humid: i cant give you a straight answer to that question. i dont think ethnicity should be given NO preference, i just think SES should be given more.

 

[F12]

Unfortunately, this appears to be the case. URMs may be underrepresented in med school classes but they certainly aren't underrepresented in those pictures on med school websites. Med schools love to show off their "diversity" and pretty much the only diversity that shows in a photo is racial diversity.

Lol. I guess this goes to show how inherently hypocritical politics can be. This country still has a very long way to go with regard to race issues, it seems, if the presence or absence of a person of a certain color can be so offensive.

 

[drizzt3117]

thats exactly what i'm saying. i can see how you might have thought that i was in favor of AA. that was because when i first joined the convo, no one had brought up SES (at least not in the train i was following). i was sort of playing devils advocate up there.

Ah, gotcha. Well, I think our views are more similar than different. My main points are that the people that need the most help in terms of admissions (that are qualified enough to succeed in med school, as another poster pointed out) should get the most help, regardless of ethnicity, but diversity, and the willingness to serve underserved populations, is another goal that should be addressed by any AA policy.

I agree with BigRedPreMed that this is not likely to happen because of a number of societal reasons, but I think that the underserved are going to be one of the biggest problems in health care and one that just isn't going to go away, and figuring out how to solve that problem is going to be one that we all as physicians will have to be a part of doing.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Lol. I guess this goes to show how inherently hypocritical politics can be. This country still has a very long way to go with regard to race issues, it seems, if the presence or absence of a person of a certain color can be so offensive.

But, the entire AA issue is political, no?

As someone has already suggested, the best solution would be to improve our primary and secondary schools so that we can provide URMs with a better educational foundation and raise their GPA/MCAT's to the level of ORM's. Currently, we are lowering our standards for them when we should be raising them to the standards we hold for other races.

However, that is costly and will require effort and time. No politician is going to advocate raising taxes or other such unpopular initiatives. They're going to promote AA. It costs nothing to institute. It takes no effort or time on the part of adcoms. Instead of accepting that ORM with 3.7/34, they simply accept the URM with 3.5/31 instead. Heck, if one year they decide to go overboard with AA, they can increase their URM rates from 12% to 18%, a boost of 50% in one year!!!! What politician or medical school wouldn't love to brag about improving their diversity by 50% in one year??!!! Sure, it's an empty diversity but we know politics is about facades anyway.

 

[HumidBeing]

But, the entire AA issue is political, no?

As someone has already suggested, the best solution would be to improve our primary and secondary schools so that we can provide URMs with a better educational foundation and raise their GPA/MCAT's to the level of ORM's. Currently, we are lowering our standards for them when we should be raising them to the standards we hold for other races.

Unfortunately, if it were as simple as just improving primary and secondary schools, things would be much easier. Changes have to reach into the home and the environment outside of the schools in order to improve the effectiveness of the schools. Those changes are much more difficult to produce through legislative reform. When classrooms are weighed down by a significant percentage of kids who come from families that don't value an education, and whose friends think of studying as 'uncool', it winds up reducing the quality of education for everyone there.

 

[flaahless]

You guys are only thinking in terms of what's best for the health care system. That's only half the equation. The other half is that med schools need URMs simply to bolster their demographics and class pictures. In this day and age, it's just not acceptable to present a class that is 50% white and 49% asian. Any system other than the system we have now (where URMs get an enormous boost regardless of socioeconomic status or background) will cause URM numbers to absolutely plummet. We all saw what happened in CA law schools when AA was outlawed. There simply aren't enough URMs with semi-qualified stats.

Currently, URM's flunk out of med school at roughly 4-6x the rate of non-URM's. Med schools are fine with this because they want to promote diversity at all costs. They will be reluctant to change to any system that will cause a drop in the percentage of URM's. The system that you guys are promoting definitely will do this because the rich-URM's will be phased out in favor of poor ORMs who are interested in working with the underserved. Med schools simply aren't interested in such a plan because they've shown that they are willing to compromise a lot for the sake of diversity.

I don't even know why you're in the debate dawg. CA resident, the admissions process is in your favor.

 

[flaahless]

But, the entire AA issue is political, no?

As someone has already suggested, the best solution would be to improve our primary and secondary schools so that we can provide URMs with a better educational foundation and raise their GPA/MCAT's to the level of ORM's. Currently, we are lowering our standards for them when we should be raising them to the standards we hold for other races.

However, that is costly and will require effort and time. No politician is going to advocate raising taxes or other such unpopular initiatives. They're going to promote AA. It costs nothing to institute. It takes no effort or time on the part of adcoms. Instead of accepting that ORM with 3.7/34, they simply accept the URM with 3.5/31 instead. Heck, if one year they decide to go overboard with AA, they can increase their URM rates from 12% to 18%, a boost of 50% in one year!!!! What politician or medical school wouldn't love to brag about improving their diversity by 50% in one year??!!! Sure, it's an empty diversity but we know politics is about facades anyway.

First off, the entire MCAT is a BS test and only a mediocre indicator of med school success. Is there that much of a difference between a 3.7/34 and a 3.5/31? I don't think so.

So your solution is to uphold urms to some arbitrary standard based off of a fallible test? That's stupid.

Get over yourself. Sounds like you're on some elitest type BS with this lower "standard" talk. I hope we go to the same school in Cali so I can show you my lower standard performance.

 

[riceman04]

If schools are looking for diversity, why aren't the historically black schools (both med and undergrad) actively recruiting non-Black applicants to "diversify" their student bodies?

ummm...what you said makes no sense in the grand scheme of things

 

[riceman04]

LMAO.

Do you actually believe this, or are you just miming Marx for the day?

I hate to bust your bubble, but to an extent what was said is true. However, what was left out of that statement is the idea of personal responsibility. It is evident that kids from lower socioeconomic areas (and most of these areas are primarily comprised of underrepresented minorities) must possess a higher than usual drive to escape the daily temptations that living in such a community provide. I only wish that the parents would WAKE THE FREAK UP and ensure that their children have the best opportunity to move beyond the restraints of the ghetto.

 

[drizzt3117]

First off, the entire MCAT is a BS test and only a mediocre indicator of med school success. Is there that much of a difference between a 3.7/34 and a 3.5/31? I don't think so.

The MCAT is being used as a proxy for Step 1 success, and while it's not perfect, it's the best such proxy possible. Also, as far as your test score example goes, I would certainly argue given the students attended a similar academic institution, there certainly is a big difference between getting a 3.5 and 3.7, and that it's more a factor of effort/time commitment than intelligence.

So your solution is to uphold urms to some arbitrary standard based off of a fallible test? That's stupid.

It doesn't even matter what the criteria for selection is. No matter what it is, someone can claim it's biased.

Get over yourself. Sounds like you're on some elitest type BS with this lower "standard" talk. I hope we go to the same school in Cali so I can show you my lower standard performance.

The evidence BRPM posted suggests URMs have a higher failure rate in med school. I don't have that data in front of me but assuming it is indeed true, it suggests that students that are being held to a lower standard don't do as well. The issue is whether that matters. To me, the ultimate goal is to improve health outcomes, and whether or not that particular goal is achieved should be the determination of whether a policy works or not, and medical school success is not necessarily the yardstick for assessment of whether an AA policy is effective. Furthermore, I'd actually contend that a higher attrition rate is preferable than the alternative, which would be creating unqualified physicians.

Finally, my opinion is that diversity isn't an end in and of it self, rather outcomes, which I think attention should be given to the commitment to helping underserved populations.

 

[BigRedPremed]

First off, the entire MCAT is a BS test and only a mediocre indicator of med school success. Is there that much of a difference between a 3.7/34 and a 3.5/31? I don't think so.

So your solution is to uphold urms to some arbitrary standard based off of a fallible test? That's stupid.

Get over yourself. Sounds like you're on some elitest type BS with this lower "standard" talk. I hope we go to the same school in Cali so I can show you my lower standard performance.

My solution would be to uphold URMs and ORMs to the same standard which is currently not happening. If you assert that they are being held to the same standard, then you lose credibility with me. Clearly, there are two different set of criteria for judging URM's and ORM's. Like I said, we need diversity. We need more minority doctors. Therefore, I have no qualms with affirmative action's goals. However, I don't like AA as a means of achieving those ends. It's just not efficient. I do truly want to see a day where we can see 25% URM's and only 5% Asians represented in medical school. However, that day will not come if we bow down to AA. URMs should be decrying AA as an empty gesture instead they are some of its most ardent defenders. I don't know why you continue to engage in this hypocrisy where you vehemently defend AA and yet continue to deny that minorities get a boost in admissions. Talk about illogical.

As for me getting into a med school in CA, it doesn't appear to be happening (0 interview invites) so I don't think you have much to worry about Congrats on the UCSD invite. I would've loved to have interviewed at that school.

Here is the AAMC study on med school attrition rates:
http://www.aamc.org/data/aib/aibissues/aibvol7_no2.pdf

The study only concluded a few years ago but the relevant data is slightly outdated (you'll see what I mean if you read it). For those of you who are lazy, here are some excerpts:

Nevertheless, our data indicate that students from different racial/ethnic
groups completed their M.D.s at disparate rates (Figure 1). The disparity
is most apparent for Black/African-American students at years four and five.

When American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African-American, and
Hispanic/Latino students did leave medical school, the most common
reason cited was “academic reasons”(Table 1). This was not the case for
Asian and White students.When Asian and White students were reported as
leaving medical school, the nonacademic categories were most
commonly cited.

I'll leave you to look at the actual data yourself.

 

[Revenant]

I realized this topic is about AA and yet there has been no MLK reference yet...time to fix that.

 

[flaahless]

The MCAT is being used as a proxy for Step 1 success, and while it's not perfect, it's the best such proxy possible. Also, as far as your test score example goes, I would certainly argue given the students attended a similar academic institution, there certainly is a big difference between getting a 3.5 and 3.7, and that it's more a factor of effort/time commitment than intelligence.

So you agree that the MCAT is a fallible test and a mediocre predictor at best? So why hold a certain group to a standard based off of a BS test? That sounds really foolish to me. Is someone with a 31 more deserving than an individual with a 34?

Onto GPA, is a 3.5 really different than a 3.7? Maybe if the two individuals went to the same high school, college and were in the same major. If not, I wouldn't say so because there are too many variables.

My point is, the "stats" of an applicant are a really crappy meter stick and to judge someone and say you're lowering standards based on a flawed measuring system is fricking stupid.

 

[flaahless]

My solution would be to uphold URMs and ORMs to the same standard which is currently not happening. If you assert that they are being held to the same standard, then you lose credibility with me. Clearly, there are two different set of criteria for judging URM's and ORM's. Like I said, we need diversity. We need more minority doctors. Therefore, I have no qualms with affirmative action's goals. However, I don't like AA as a means of achieving those ends. It's just not efficient. I do truly want to see a day where we can see 25% URM's and only 5% Asians represented in medical school. However, that day will not come if we bow down to AA. URMs should be decrying AA as an empty gesture instead they are some of its most ardent defenders. I don't know why you continue to engage in this hypocrisy where you vehemently defend AA and yet continue to deny that minorities get a boost in admissions. Talk about illogical.

As for me getting into a med school in CA, it doesn't appear to be happening (0 interview invites) so I don't think you have much to worry about Congrats on the UCSD invite. I would've loved to have interviewed at that school.

Here is the AAMC study on med school attrition rates:
http://www.aamc.org/data/aib/aibissues/aibvol7_no2.pdf

The study only concluded a few years ago but the relevant data is slightly outdated (you'll see what I mean if you read it). For those of you who are lazy, here are some excerpts:

Nevertheless, our data indicate that students from different racial/ethnic
groups completed their M.D.s at disparate rates (Figure 1). The disparity
is most apparent for Black/African-American students at years four and five.

When American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African-American, and
Hispanic/Latino students did leave medical school, the most common
reason cited was “academic reasons”(Table 1). This was not the case for
Asian and White students.When Asian and White students were reported as
leaving medical school, the nonacademic categories were most
commonly cited.

I'll leave you to look at the actual data yourself.

You have this set mentality that urms are really underperforming and it's quite unfortunate. I wish I could be the one to prove you wrong, but I just hope wherever you go you lose the elitest/stuck up attitude.

 

[drizzt3117]

So you agree that the MCAT is a fallible test and a mediocre predictor at best? So why hold a certain group to a standard based off of a BS test? That sounds really foolish to me. Is someone with a 31 more deserving than an individual with a 34?

All tests are fallible, that said, the MCAT certainly does test the material that should be learned prior to starting med school and is the best indicator of Step 1 performance. Like the AA system, it's the best thing we have.

Onto GPA, is a 3.5 really different than a 3.7? Maybe if the two individuals went to the same high school, college and were in the same major. If not, I wouldn't say so because there are too many variables.

Obviously interpreting GPA from different schools isn't that easy but I would have to say in general a 3.5 is pretty different than a 3.7. Regardless, the differences in qualifications aren't that close, look at the thread in non-trad forum which is comparing candidates with sub 3.2 GPA who have more interview offers than 3.7/35 candidates.

My point is, the "stats" of an applicant are a really crappy meter stick and to judge someone and say you're lowering standards based on a flawed measuring system is fricking stupid.

How is academic performance a poor measuring stick to predict future academic performance, and how are test scores a poor measuring stick to predict future test scores?

 

[CycleCA]

One issue that I feel strongly about is the disparity between males and females in terms of college acceptance/attendance. This goes beyond racial categories and even socioeconomic class. I think that this is a real issue that deserves attention. It CAN BE PROVEN for a FACT that males are left behind in school, given less attention, and treated worse than females. Why don't people stick up for men? Don't paste some snippet about males being encouraged to enter college or some other admissions policy, either. The fact is that people just don't care.

 

[AlexMorph]

Flaahless, it's easy to boil people down to a pair of numbers. It's easy to boil them down to black/white/asian/hispanic/etc. Never mind that "Asian" encompasses a crap load of countries. Same goes for "Hispanic" too.

The individual is not allowed to exist but is always grouped together with others like him. This is because that's what the med. schools want. They don't care if a person is Dominican, Mexican, Salvadoran, Colombian, etc. The fact that they are Hispanic and can now pose for pictures and show everyone else the diversity of the school is important to med. schools.

This mindset is simply the product of today's society. Drizzt, Bigredpremed, and Flaahless, you can debate all you want. YOU WON'T CHANGE A THING.

I'm not against debating important issues; this certainly qualifies as one. But you guys are simply wasting your time arguing this point amongst yourselves every 10th thread that is started on SDN.

Now let's talk about how we despise the adcoms at "XYZ medical school" for not offering us interviews and eat ice cream to make us feel better.

 

[drizzt3117]

The individual is not allowed to exist but is always grouped together with others like him. This is because that's what the med. schools want. They don't care if a person is Dominican, Mexican, Salvadoran, Colombian, etc. The fact that they are Hispanic and can now pose for pictures and show everyone else the diversity of the school is important to med. schools.

While that would be nice for some of those people, IIRC the only Hispanic students counted as URMs by med schools are Puerto Rican and Mexican.

This mindset is simply the product of today's society. Drizzt, Bigredpremed, and Flaahless, you can debate all you want. YOU WON'T CHANGE A THING.

We might not be able to change anything with our debate here, but John Roberts and Clarence Thomas certainly can... Would the supreme court have ruled as it did recently in the 60s and 70s? Probably not, meaning that public opinion seems to have shifted regarding AA. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that what people think doesn't matter.