If rankings, reputation, and statistics meant everything then...

[medicine2006]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It seems like there are always an abundant amount of immature people on here that go on and on about how URM get in with lower numbers and how these people will make worst doctors. They'll point to some recent study or survey that will say Look at how Howard and Meharry docs get disciplined more.

My reponse will not use examples in medicine but rather...

If everything in this world could be predicted purely by ranking, reputation, or statistics then

1)The Yankees would win the World Series every year but they don't. That is why we play the game and have a regular season and playoff

2)If where you went to school counted for everything then all the CEOs, Senators, Presidents, and Nobel prize winners would come from schools like Harvard or CalTech. They Don't. People have to actually go out in the real world and be creative to get ahead.

So all you complainers are so typical of pre-meds. Not even in med school yet and saying sh#t like I got a 39 MCAT and a 3.99 GPA from Princeton so therefore I should be better than a URM with lower numbers. Many of the greatest doctors are from lower tier schools and didn't always get all A's. News flash to those types; the world does not owe you anything. Being in medical school is a priviledge and not a right! It cost more money to the school and tax payers to produce a physician than the tuition money you put in. So the schools should be able to chose URM, even if they have lower numbers, because society needs more minority doctors.

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

Well you did make sense up into the end where you stated

"So the schools should be able to chose URM, even if they have lower numbers, because society needs more minority doctors."

Basically this statement was unrealated to the rest of your thread and completely unsupported.

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

If admissions take into account the funding they recieve from the government, and the government is funded from taxes shouldnt the richest people be the ones given priority in admissions. They are the ones paying th most taxes that support these schools you know. The URMS are generally poor and dont contribute as much money in taxes and therefore should not be considered by any state funded school for admissions.


The above arguement was merely to make an ass out of the creater of this thread and does not reflect my beliefs.

 

[....]

If there was a true world series and we had to send the team we though would do the best to compete with the world who would we send? the team with the best #'s. That is the analogous situation.......

You said it best......"Being in medical school is a priviledge and not a right"

You say that numbers dont make good doctors....well what does?
Being a minority?! Thats odd......So im just an average doctor untill you drop me in africa where I would be a minority....then I'll be bestowed with competence from the AA fairy?

Why do we need minority doctors? Why should race have anything to do with it? Why cant people be serious when they say "It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin"
Well to matter how you look at it....giving bonuses to some because they are black means giving the shaft to somone simply because they are white...

Also, not misrepresent the anti AA position...you said people go on about how "URM get in with lower numbers and how these people will make worst doctors."
Negative......people with lower numbers tend to make less professionaly competent doctors.....and more importantly....who the heck here has said that being a minority makes people less likely do be worse doctors?! nobody.......

 

[JM.]

Originally posted by gertie

what everyone here can infer from the fool's post is that he is bitter that he doesn't have high scores and that he couldn't get into one of the highest quality schools..and that's ok..there are many types of docs...but the best, there are only a handful..and yes, those are the pioneers, those contribute to the advancement of medical science the most...and those are the ones who graduate from the harvards, etc...not the meharrys!!!

Dude -

No -

Everyone -

BE NICE D@MN IT!

 

[RLMD]

Originally posted by gertie

what everyone here can infer from the fool's post is that he is bitter that he doesn't have high scores and that he couldn't get into one of the highest quality schools..and that's ok..there are many types of docs...but the best, there are only a handful..and yes, those are the pioneers, those contribute to the advancement of medical science the most...and those are the ones who graduate from the harvards, etc...not the meharrys!!!

I think your views are a bit biased towards people with higher scores. And I dont think that people that leaders of the medical profession are geniuses that graduate from harvard do more research than treat patients and develop new more expensive surgeries that arent practical to anyone. I think leaders in medicine are people that are valued by their community and dedicated to their patients. And those type of people do graduate in abundance from schools like howard and meharry.

 

[All-Star14]

Thanks for clearing that up, gertie

 

[RLMD]

Originally posted by gertie
RLMD,

although i can see how u inferred that i am biased toward people with higher scores, and perhaps, i am..but i sure as hell know the MCAT score doesnt mean everything..i only got a 30. the MCAT doesnt mean everything,..i had a terrible day the day it was admonistered..and couldn't finish the passages but my gpa was 3.98 from a top university..so i know that the MCAT alone doesn't demonstrate one's intellecrtual abilities by itself, nor does the GPA by itself. BUT, those with a 4.0/45 DO have superior intellectual abilities, and again, that doesnt guarantee that threy will be great physicians..BUT, again, you will see again and again, those with the highest stats are more likely to get into a top quality school and then be at the top of their class, and then go on to a prestigious residency and then go on to make great contributions to medicine and humanity. IT is much more unlikely for this to happen if a person has low scores and other indications of lower intellectual abilities..they will not succeed like those with superior abilities.

and whether medicine2006 believes it or not, Meharry does admit students with some of the most dismal scores and graduates many incom,petent doctors..this is public info!! and just b/c i am trashing meharry, it doesn't mean i am trashing URMs!!! in fact, harvard has one of the most diverse classe w/huge perecntage URM who become leaders in their fields..my argument has nothing to do with URM and everything to do with intelligence and how the lack thereof will prvent anyone aspiring to be a great physician from doing so.

Good, we agree. The first person I have agreed with in a while on this thread. I have said before that there are dangers to accepting students with low scores. Sometimes these students succeed regardless and sometimes they fail. Adcoms have to screen applicants properly to make sure these students with low scores have the dedication to succeed in medical school and become competent physicians. This is where these schools need to improve. I dont want to bash the school I want to attend, but I have heard about how howard and meharry dont always give the support that these students need sometimes. this leads to some students slipping through the cracks and some graduating without all the proper skills. A lot of this blame falls on the individual also because the education at the school is great and students that have the dedication can become great doctors out of these schools.

 

[jennie 21]

I don't think you need to be briliant to be a good doctor; however, you do need a certain basic level of intelligence. I don't think that someone with a 45 on their MCAT will necessarily make a better doctor, or make more of a contribution to society, than someone with a 27-30. However, I am concerned about students admitted to medical school with, say, a 20 on the MCAT; these people may not have the intellectual ability to make competent physicians. I picked the number 20 out of the blue and it is not meant to offend anybody here; I'm sure there are reasons (such as lack of preparation) why someone could get such a score yet still have the requisite intelligence to be a good physician, but as a rule I would think people scoring that low probably would not be able to learn the necessary science well enough to be competent doctors.

There are many different kinds of doctors and the kinds of traits that are desirable in a cardiac surgeon or physician-scientist researcher are probably not the same as those desireable in a family practitioner. In some specialties brains are really desireable, in others it is the ability to relate to people, and one's commitment to one's patients, that is most important. I think there's room for all kinds--from the brilliant but arrogant cardiac surgeon to the extremely compassionate but less brilliant family doc (not that I'm saying that all surgeons are necessarily brilliant or that family practice docs aren't) as long as all are smart enough to practice medicine competently.

 

[medicine2006]

Originally posted by gertie
NOw, I have stayed out of this AA debate going on here but I just couldn't help but jump in after reading the nonsense written by medicine2006, whose analsyes and analogies indicate inferior intecllectual abilities.

I don't want to explain point by point why I feel this way, but many of the smarter people here see the flaws in your arguments.

and fyi, those individuals who have made the greatest contributions to society have been the more intelligent people, and those people do go to the harvards and caltechs of this world. for some reason, people refuse to believe that there are smarter people in this world and less smart people in this world. to be a great physician one must have a unique blend of high intelligence, great compassion, empathy ..and many other qualities. BUT w/o this high IQ (indicating a greater ability to understand surface contradictions, contextual subtleties, inferences etc) one will NEVER be able to be a great physician...those with a 4.0gpa, 45mcat does not guarantee a great physician b/c a lot depends on the other factors as well but one who has low intellectual abilities can NEVER be a great physician (this person may have the most compassion in the world but without great intelligence, will not be competent enough.

Not All doctors were created equal just like not all lawyers were created equal...for some reason, i have seen way too many times people posting "we will all be doctors in the end or all us medical schools train great physicians...this is pure nonsense..harvard medical school does produce MORE leader in the medical sciences than does Meharry, whether the fool who started this thread believes it or not..which is not to say that no great physician graduates from Meharry.

and by the way, to anyone who will reply to thisa post regarding my using 4.0/45mcat as an example...i never inferred that those with lower scores cannot have extremely high intellectual abilities...BUT those who do obtain such score, DO have very suprior intellectual abilities..

what everyone here can infer from the fool's post is that he is bitter that he doesn't have high scores and that he couldn't get into one of the highest quality schools..and that's ok..there are many types of docs...but the best, there are only a handful..and yes, those are the pioneers, those contribute to the advancement of medical science the most...and those are the ones who graduate from the harvards, etc...not the meharrys!!!

You just proved what kind of fool you are by that post. Just because you don't agree with someon does not mean you resort to childish name calling. Do you want to become a professional or stay at your current school yard mentality!

 

[kate88]

This is my first post on these forums. I've read so many threads about AA and medical school that I felt like it was time to throw in my two cents.

I used to be against affirmative action in the med school process. I mean, it always seemed to me that if I worked hard and did well I should have just as fair a shot at gaining admission as the next person in line, regardless of circumstance or race. I know most WASP-y people like me applying have at least once thought about how many more medical schools would offer them acceptances if they were a URM. It's true in some ways. But, after interning for a year at an urban family practice as an undergrad, i have definitely changed my mind about AA.

The fact is that an increasing portion of our country's population is "minority". Many of these groups deal with issues foriegn to the average white doctor and communicate in different way. The doctor with whom I interned, as much as he tried, had a hard time communicating with and understanding what his patients were telling him. He'd tell them to go for a walk around the block for exercise if they couldn't afford to join a gym, and they'd just stare at him in disbelief. Their neighborhood was not a safe place to take a stroll after work in the dark. This is only one, perhaps weak, example.

Most of us would agree that communication is key in the physician-patient relationship. This growing group of patients needs competent physicians who understand their problems, needs, and culture. In addition, patients are more likely to be honest with and follow the advice of a physician with whom they can relate. I'm not saying that kids with 20's on the MCAT should get in, but there's more to being a physician than raw intelligence. I really believe that a URM with a 28 on the MCAT would do a better job at serving her community (especially at the family practice level) than a person who has no idea about that community's culture with a 35.

This is all a round-about way of saying that maybe AA's most important role in medical school admissions is to ensure that patients are able to access physicians who they trust and who can understand them at a level above simply that of doctor-patient. While some of us non-URM's may think we are getting the short end of the stick in the admissions process, in the end patients will benefit, and that's more important.

(Hopefully this is fairly coherent, I'm pretty tired!!😴 ) Good luck in your application process everyone!!

 

[medicine2006]

kate88 that was a great first post. i couldn't have said it any better. i praise you for your compassion.

 

[RLMD]

Your first post is a very good one. I completely agree and could not have said it better myself. Caring for patients is the most important thing, and AA helps address these needs.

 

[All-Star14]

nice 1st post, kate!

 

[DrThom]

Now, i have also stayed out of the AA debate for some time, though I am a longtime reader of the threads. But i do want to voice my opinion. AA, how it is used today, is flawed, like most human institutions (including med school admissions). I am not saying its a BAD thing but it flawed. This of this scenario. Admissions committee is deciding between two candidates. One of which is not a UMR who scored high on the MCAT, did well in school, has alright LORs, and lots of clinical experience. He/She has dreamed of being a physician since he/she was a little kid. The other is a UMR who did not score as well on the MCAT but still has average/competetive grades. However, the LORs are not as great and little to none clinical. In order to meet AA standards, the school accepts the URM but not the other candidate. To me, this does not seem fair. The non-URM is being deprived of his lifelong dream in favor of the URM candidate who's drive is obviously not as high but only got accepted to meet a quota. Now I am all for equality between EVERYONE, but AA is not the way.

 

[Jillianrae]

what everyone here can infer from the fool's post is that he is bitter that he doesn't have high scores and that he couldn't get into one of the highest quality schools..and that's ok..there are many types of docs...but the best, there are only a handful..and yes, those are the pioneers, those contribute to the advancement of medical science the most...and those are the ones who graduate from the harvards, etc...not the meharrys!!!

good docs, and yes even the best docs, can come from any school just as the best in any field can come from anywhere.

I will agree that AA has it's flaws, but its goal is noble. Perhaps rather than worrying about quotas, medical schools should strive to fill the need. And maybe they already are. The areas most hurting for doctors are often those with high proportions of minorities (read inner cities, reservations, and rural farming communities). Beverly Hills doesn't need anymore plastic surgeons, but these underserved areas need GPs.

It's reasonable for medical schools to look for students who are more likely to be culturally sensitive and who are likely to serve in the areas where there is the most need. That is not to say that non-URMS are unlikely to fill this need. I think that one of my biggest selling points as an applicant was my desire to work in a rural area. I want to live in a small farming community, like the one I grew up in (80% migrant farm workers) for the rest of my life. Perhaps I got in because, despite the fact that I am a member of what is considered an "over-represented minority", the adcoms could see that the money used to put me through school would be well spent in terms of investment in an area of need.

I feel very lucky to be entering medical school despite all of the problems in today's health care system. I'm sure that almost all acceptees, URM and non-URM alike, feel the same. All scores aside, we worked our individual and collective butts off.