I'm sorry but this pisses me off

[infiniti]

To the OP, California does not have affirmative action. Your problem as someone already stated is that you think numbers are everything. Past a certain point, numbers simply loose their predictive value. You need to suck it up and move on. People on SDN aren't here to please you. Whenever something pisses you off, do us all a favor. Don't post stupid threads. Simply pretend like you never saw the thread in the first place. Can you imagine how many stupid threads will be on here if everyone starts a new thread when someone pisses them off?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ghost]

yeah but you say that numerical stats are fairly irrelevant and in fact can be completely disregarded in certain circumstances, like to make a 'more diverse ' class. if so then why should numerical stats be used even in the start to weed out some people if you're going to bring back some people with poor stats in the end? your problem is that there is no logical sense to it and you refuse to admit that numbers are important except when they get in the way. so we get these complicated rationalizations that essentially stop making sense about how we have to care about the common good and the bigger picture.

he has never once even come close to implying that. look, GPA and MCAT scores are used to predict accedemic success in med school. they are used to predict if a person can survive med school. they are a tool to narrow down a huge applicant pool to see who gets an interview. a person w/ a 40 mcat and a 4.0 gpa may make better grades in med school than a person w/ a 31 mcat and 3.1 gpa, but the school has made the decision that both applicants are smart enough to make it through med school, and they both get interviews. on one of my interviews, the dean of admissions told us that everyone in the room is equal. they know we can all survive med school, now they want to get to know us. that is what the interview is for. as a doctor, you will be treating patients everyday, not taking standardized tests. gpa and mcat scores do not predict how well you are at dealing with people. those of you who are underemphasizing the interview are doing yourselves a huge injustice. the personal statement and interview are the only parts of the application process where the adcoms can actually see you as a person, and what makes you tick. lor's are important too, but i would say not as important as the interview since most lor's sound pretty similar. these guys interview 100's of people a year, they know when the person sitting across the table from them is being sincere or feeding them what they think they want to hear.

this is a long and grueling process. IT IS NOT A NUMBERS GAME. yes, there is a lot to be said for gpa and mcat in this process, i am not undervaluing their importance whatsoever. but they are not the end all be all. if so, why would they even require a personal statement, lor's, ec's, or an interview. if you have a 4.0 and 40 and you didn't get in or didn't get into your top choice, don't do yourself a disservice and blame it on a minority getting your spot. if you are that weak, then i would venture a guess and say you probably didn't come across half as well as you think you did in your interview. these guys are pretty perceptive. when you are a dr and you misdiagnose a patient are you gonna say, "i can't be wrong, i got a 3.9 gpa, 41 mcat, and 240 on step 1. the lab tech must have messed up the test." have some accountability. maybe you just weren't right for that particular school. if you've got high numbers, it obviously isn't that. find out what it is and work on it. maybe they just liked the guy with a 31 and 3.1 better than you in his interview and personal statement. deal with it. but don't take the easy way out and assume you are an oppressed whiteboy. i'm sorry if this post came across harsh, but it is just so weak to blame your shortfalls on somebody else. law2doc has really been giving you all some very valid advice. maybe it is b/c he is a bit older, w/ a bit more life experience and has been through this process before, with law school. anyways, hope you all get into your top choices. i'll get off my soapbox now, and let you commence to ripping me apart.

 

[1Path]

I just said this above, but I'll say it again -- nobody in California can use race as a deciding factor in school admissions, jobs, contract awards, etc. That person got in because s/he did something way more incredible than us -- even if it is that they were born in a ditch, grew up in a hole, and yet somehow graduated college while working two jobs 40 hours/week.

NO white applicant who feels passed over due to AA wants to believe it because it riterates the point that she/he just didn't make the cut at a particular school or as this generation is so fond of saying, LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mmmmdonuts]

look, GPA and MCAT scores are used to predict accedemic success in med school. they are used to predict if a person can survive med school. they are a tool to narrow down a huge applicant pool to see who gets an interview.

so why ignore them in some instances? why say that i will use numbers in this manner for one person and then disregard them for others?

a person w/ a 40 mcat and a 4.0 gpa may make better grades in med school than a person w/ a 31 mcat and 3.1 gpa, but the school has made the decision that both applicants are smart enough to make it through med school

based on? you mean that since one person has spent time volunteering at a refugee camp in rwanda or happens to be a particular race then that suddenly elevates their intrinsic intellect above that reflected by test scores that are applicable to others? odd.

on one of my interviews, the dean of admissions told us that everyone in the room is equal.

so you believed him? assuming you were the last person picked for an interview that day you actually believed that you were equivalent to their number one prospect?

if you have a 4.0 and 40 and you didn't get in or didn't get into your top choice, don't do yourself a disservice and blame it on a minority getting your spot.

should not the opposite occur too? shouldnt minorities stop doing themselves a disservice and saying that if they dont get in with their 2.9 and 27 that they didnt get in because of institutional racism?

 

[QuikClot]

The ultimate goal is (or should be) to produce the best physicians you can. AdComs today recognise that the doctors people want in the room are not necessarily A+-student types with external brain packs strapped to their torsos.

People expect their doctors to be smart and knowledgable. That's necessary. But even more important, I would argue, are good people skills. Because communication is what it's all about; with the patients, with colleagues, with administration.

After communication, I'll take flexibility and adaptablity, which corrolate with humility and good life experience. Caring for people requires thinking on the fly, admitting mistakes, tolerating pressure. Grades and MCAT don't measure that. Interviews and personal statements can. All measures are important.

"MDeitities" posion a workplace. Doctors who know how to make the coffee and run the copier make it better. If AdComs think you see medicine as a way to never make photocopies again, they don't care how many steps of the Krebs cycle you can recite.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

The ultimate goal is (or should be) to produce the best physicians you can. AdComs today recognise that the doctors people want in the room are not necessarily A+-student types with external brain packs strapped to their torsos.

then why do they use gpa or mcat numbers at all in the process?

 

[1Path]

Well, given that you appear to be a youngish applicant, which already limits your likelihood of substantial life experiences, such an intense focus on academics might have actually been a bit of a detriment. .

I don't think it's age per se that is the issue. I think it's the fact that for the first time in history, a generation of folks are growing up thinking that because they work hard the world OWES them something in return.

WAKE UP people!!The world isn't going to kiss your a$$ because you did somethig great, so please get over yourselves! Your "reward" in life should be in being lucky enough to be healthy and have a reasonably happy life, with a means to support yourselves with loved ones to share it with!! FYI, that's a hellva lot more than MOST people on this planet get, so go get some humility and be thankful for what you DO have!

 

[gostudy]

I've been wondering this for a while, why do adcoms require us to write a PS, list ECs, provide LORs, and pay our way to an interview? Why not just add our GPAs and MCATs together for a numerical score and grant acceptances to the highest scoring applicants. Wouldn't it make everybody's job easier?

 

[QuikClot]

then why do they use gpa or mcat numbers at all in the process?

Read the post:

People expect their doctors to be smart and knowledgable. That's necessary.

To the people having trouble grasping the concept of multiple important factors: give it some thought, because diagnostic medicine is all about multiple contributing causes and equfinality. "Not overwhelmingly important" does not mean "not desirable at all."

 

[mmmmdonuts]

I've been wondering this for a while, why do adcoms require us to write a PS, list ECs, provide LORs, and pay our way to an interview? Why not just add our GPAs and MCATs together for a numerical score and grant acceptances to the highest scoring applicants. Wouldn't it make everybody's job easier?

thats pretty much what they do

 

[Law2Doc]

so why ignore them in some instances? why say that i will use numbers in this manner for one person and then disregard them for others?

based on? you mean that since one person has spent time volunteering at a refugee camp in rwanda or happens to be a particular race then that suddenly elevates their intrinsic intellect above that reflected by test scores that are applicable to others? odd.

so you believed him? assuming you were the last person picked for an interview that day you actually believed that you were equivalent to their number one prospect?

You are assuming a lot of things that no one is claiming. Numbers are used to narrow the pool. Not selectively used for some. Experiences such as eg working as a refugee camp are valued by adcoms, not due to intrinsic intellect, but because experience makes you more of a well rounded person, which is thought to translate to a better doctor down the road. Some schools do, in fact, consider everyone who gets to the interview stage to be equal, making the interview the exclusive determiner of admission. Numerical and other credentials are thus considered more heavilly in the pre-interview stage at such places. I won't address the racial issues, because honestly, a doctor will need to work with and treat folks of all races, and so latent hostility for the supposed advantages of certain groups might make this an uncomfortable or poor career choice for you. Good luck.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

To the people having trouble grasping the concept of multiple important factors: give it some thought, because diagnostic medicine is all about multiple contributing causes and equfinality. "Not overwhelmingly important" does not mean "not desirable at all."

to the people having trouble grasping the concept of diagnostic testing which is important in the medical field 'gold standard' doesn't suddenly become 'secondary criterion' because youre treating a different patient

 

[captainbsm]

On the contrary, I think humility is severely lacking. I have no evidence to argue this point but it almost seems to me that arrogance is often rewarded in our society today. Am I completely out of touch? (This is not a rhetorical ?, please tell me if I am)

Humility is lacking in our society. I have had to check my own ego from time to time. But if you make it your business to be honest with yourself and deal with arrogance in your own life in whatever form it may take then you are many steps closer to embracing humility. Hey this is the pastor in me talking lol....

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Numbers are used to narrow the pool.

then why ignore them for some applicants

 

[Law2Doc]

then why ignore them for some applicants

They don't. This is where I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

 

[NapeSpikes]

They don't. This is where I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

*sits back and watches the chaos ensue*

 

[mmmmdonuts]

They don't. This is where I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

you just said they do. this is where i feel like im talking to a pile of dirt.

 

[Law2Doc]

you just said they do. this is where i feel like im talking to a pile of dirt.

Reread my posts, and no need to insult.

 

[Ghost]

first i would like to say my previous post was not directed personally at you. seeing as how you misinterpeted everything else i said, or read it how you felt like reading rather than what i said, i wanted to clarify that point. the only part that was specifically directed at you was that you were misinterpeting law2docs posts, much in the same way you have misinterpeted mine. now, onto the rubuttal:

so why ignore them in some instances? why say that i will use numbers in this manner for one person and then disregard them for others?

1. who is ignoring the numbers? 2. who are the numbers being disregarded for? they are being used the same for everyone - to see if the applicant meets the minimum requirements for the school to warrant an interview. minimum requirements = the level which the school has set to satisfy the applicant can successfully make it through med school. they are being used the same for all applicants. if the min reqs are a 28 mcat and 3.0 gpa, then both students have met the min reqs. notice i said min reqs.

based on? you mean that since one person has spent time volunteering at a refugee camp in rwanda or happens to be a particular race then that suddenly elevates their intrinsic intellect above that reflected by test scores that are applicable to others? odd.

no. i made no mention of a person's ec's nor their skin color. read carefully. if you must, read it two or three times. what i said was, each school has min requirements that each applicant must exceed in order to prove to the adcom that they can successfully graduate from med school. a person who greatly surpasses these mins, like a 4.0 and 40, will probably make better grades in med school. but, the person who barely passes the min, like a 3.1 and 31, while they may not make as high grades as the other person, has still exceeded the mins necessary to prove they can handle the courseload. i made no inference that ec's would boost someone's intrinsic intelligence. if that were the case, i would reccomend you go do lots of ec's (jk).

so you believed him? assuming you were the last person picked for an interview that day you actually believed that you were equivalent to their number one prospect?

yes. abso-freaking-lutely. here is the part you are not grasping. as he said, every person in that room has satisfied to the adcom that they could pass medical school. now they wanted to interview us............hold for the big reveal...............to get to know us, something they could not do merely by looking at our mcats and gpas. if there number one prospect turned out to be an arrogant prick, who thought he was entitled to med school b/c he had a high gpa and mcat, and their last person picked turned out to be a very likable, social person who showed sincere interest in their reasons for wanting to become a doctor..........then you bet the last person was picked. these people are picking their colleagues.

should not the opposite occur too? shouldnt minorities stop doing themselves a disservice and saying that if they dont get in with their 2.9 and 27 that they didnt get in because of institutional racism?

no, the opposite should not occur. a person, of any color, with a 2.9 and 27 should realize their stats didn't meet the min reqs to satisfy the adcom that they could successfully complete med school. they should realize this part of their app is weak, and do something about it such as a post bacc. just as a person with a 4.0 and 40 who didn't get in should realize they have something weak on their app or their persoanlity, identify it and fix it.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Reread my posts, and no need to insult.

there isnt? then why did you?

 

[beetlerum]

In a way, they do. Look, I support affirmative action, but the fact is that certain minorities can get admitted with numbers that would screen out white applicants. Look at mdapplicants if you don't believe me.

I'm all for choosing well-rounded applicants, but I can't agree that numbers don't matter. Don't we want smart doctors? MCAT and GPA may not be a perfect predictor of intellectual ability for medicine, they may not even be a great predictor, but they're far better than anything else. On average, there is a big difference in intelligence and ability between a 2.5/20 and a 4.0/40. Sorry if some people want it to be otherwise. Some posters come very close to implying that numbers basically shouldn't matter beyond being a screen. I can't agree. Of course we want docs with social skills, but we really want very smart docs too.

Interestingly, someone above suggested that people skills are more important than intelligence. Really? Who would choose a doc with average intelligence and great people skills over a very smart doc with average people skills?

They don't. This is where I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

 

[Anastasis]

Hey Ghost - great post.

 

[Rafa]

Interestingly, someone above suggested that people skills are more important than intelligence. Really? Who would choose a doc with average intelligence and great people skills over a very smart doc with average people skills?

First of all, it's not necessarily an all or nothing proposal. One isn't 100% more important than the other. But you *do* need both.

If I'm on a deserted island, I want the super-smart doctor. If anywhere else, I'd want the doctor who knows how to communicate with other people. In a 10-hour critical operation, I want the surgeon who can work with, and fully lead, a team to success. You can keep the genius who's too full of himself/herself/aloof/insecure to communicate with the 'not as smart' doctors, resulting in a comatose patient.

Obviously, those are both extreme examples, but medicine is a team effort. Unless you plan to be commando-solo-smarto doctor(o), you'll get a hell of a lot farther (and do a lot more good) if you can convince people to work with you, and not against you.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

1. who is ignoring the numbers? 2. who are the numbers being disregarded for?

look if we're going to be blatantly disingenuous then theres no real reason to talk right? its funny that youre like oh they both got above the minimum requirements of an mcat of 12 and gpa of 1.0 so numbers were not technically ignored in the istance of accepting someone based on non-numerical aspects.

a person who greatly surpasses these mins, like a 4.0 and 40, will probably make better grades in med school. but, the person who barely passes the min, like a 3.1 and 31, while they may not make as high grades as the other person, has still exceeded the mins necessary to prove they can handle the courseload.

and yet oddly you decided to exclude quite a number of people who also surpass those mins. based on?

if that were the case, i would reccomend you go do lots of ec's (jk).

jk is what schools said to you at the end of yur acceptance letter jk <---this makes it not an insult lol

 

[mmmmdonuts]

If I'm on a deserted island, I want the smart doctor. If anywhere else, I'd want the doctor who knows how to communicate with other people. In a 10-hour critical operation, I want the surgeon who can work with, and fully lead, a team to success.

if your on a deserted island then the surgeon doesnt have a team? doesnt that mean you die? these rationalizations are getting more lame

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm all for choosing well-rounded applicants, but I can't agree that numbers don't matter. Don't we want smart doctors? MCAT and GPA may not be a perfect predictor of intellectual ability for medicine, they may not even be a great predictor, but they're far better than anything else. On average, there is a big difference in intelligence and ability between a 2.5/20 and a 4.0/40.

You seem to be mired in the same quagmire as the other poster. At the risk of being redundant - Numbers matter to a point. But past that point they do not. Everyone who gets interviewed surpassed that threshold point. (Nobody gets interviewed with a 2.5/20.) That means they have the intellectual ability to survive the classroom portion of med school. Getting A's in those first two years of med school does not mean you will be a better doctor than someone who was more average in med school. It's hard to deal with this concept when in undergrad, because you are in a situation where you are pretty exclusively judged by grades. But that will all change, and some of the folks who didn't seem competitive to you before are going to be able to bring certain talents to bear that you'll wish you had. Some of those are the kind of skills being looked for in PS, interviews, and unusual ECs and experiences. I didn't make up the system, but think it works adequately. Someone with a 4.0/40 and no acceptances will be understandably frustrated, but can hopefully improve on the things they were lacking in the next cycle.

 

[Bernito]

Maybe I'm being idealistic (or cynical?), but I think the politics you mentioned are rooted more in an effort to exert (arguably poor) leadership rather than arrogance. Some people just don't know how to lead...or they're terribly insecure...so they treat others poorly or are very aloof toward their employees/those of "lower stature"...the result is often that people lose respect for these individuals and lose any sort of motivation to work hard for them...so it becomes a vicious cycle...further arrogance might intimidate or motivate some, but most just turn away in exasperation...serves the individual right IMO.
<presuming here that arrogance itself isn't rooted in insecurity...which is highly arguable.>

I think arrogance only serves an external purpose right, to change someone else's opinion of you. So it has to be rooted in insecurity.

 

[MissMary]

In a way, they do. Look, I support affirmative action, but the fact is that certain minorities can get admitted with numbers that would screen out white applicants. Look at mdapplicants if you don't believe me.

I'm all for choosing well-rounded applicants, but I can't agree that numbers don't matter. Don't we want smart doctors? MCAT and GPA may not be a perfect predictor of intellectual ability for medicine, they may not even be a great predictor, but they're far better than anything else. On average, there is a big difference in intelligence and ability between a 2.5/20 and a 4.0/40. Sorry if some people want it to be otherwise. Some posters come very close to implying that numbers basically shouldn't matter beyond being a screen. I can't agree. Of course we want docs with social skills, but we really want very smart docs too.

Interestingly, someone above suggested that people skills are more important than intelligence. Really? Who would choose a doc with average intelligence and great people skills over a very smart doc with average people skills?

A few things:

1) mdapplicants is not an acceptable resource. you should not make any kind of generalizations based on any of the "results" retrieved from that site.

2) are numbers the sole predictors of intelligence? is intelligence the only significant factor when determining who will make a great doctor and who might not? I think the adcoms are interested in finding individuals with the whole package. in order to do that, they must look at a number of factors. using numbers exclusively just wont cut it.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Numbers matter to a point. But past that point they do not.

as i said that is quite disingenuous. in the past colleges and medical schools have used ecs as a nebulous excuse to accept a less-qualified person over a better one. say you have a 3.7 from a decent college and a 32. not amazing but definitely ok. you dont get in but the same school accepts people with 3.3 and 29. the excuse has routinely been 'clearly they interviewed better than you" or 'they were more well-rounded'. these are statements that can never be proven objectively. which is good. because that means they can never be disproven either. and that is how we explain urms beating out white guys. in the same way if you say oh you were all better than the baseline mcat 25 and gpa 2.8 that we know means you will succeed that is disinguenous. you just set the bar low enough to accomodate the outliers but for some reason you try to get 99% of your class from a different criterion. its just for 1% that you ignore that stuff.

 

[Law2Doc]

there isnt? then why did you?

Just FYI, "Talking to a wall" wasn't an insult. It is an expression (in english and actually several other languages), suggesting an unresponsive audience, or not being heard. You can find it on google.

 

[MissMary]

as i said that is quite disingenuous. in the past colleges and medical schools have used ecs as a nebulous excuse to accept a less-qualified person over a better one. say you have a 3.7 from a decent college and a 32. not amazing but definitely ok. you dont get in but the same school accepts people with 3.3 and 29. the excuse has routinely been 'clearly they interviewed better than you" or 'they were more well-rounded'. these are statements that can never be proven objectively. which is good. because that means they can never be disproven either. and that is how we explain urms beating out white guys. in the same way if you say oh you were all better than the baseline mcat 25 and gpa 2.8 that we know means you will succeed that is disinguenous. you just set the bar low enough to accomodate the outliers but for some reason you try to get 99% of your class from a different criterion. its just for 1% that you ignore that stuff.

what is your definition of more qualified? if you think that a qualified candidate can simply be defined based on numbers you are mistaken and clearly are not in the position to define who is an who isnt a qualified applicant for a medical degree.

why is there no outrage directed at the white people who get in with equally low stats? the assumption seems to be that only minorities make low scores and are somehow "stealing" spots. i dont get it.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Just FYI, "Talking to a wall" wasn't an insult. It is an expression (in english and actually several other languages), suggesting an unresponsive audience, or not being heard. You can find it on google.

it can also be used to imply other things cant it?

just asking

 

[Law2Doc]

as i said that is quite disingenuous. in the past colleges and medical schools have used ecs as a nebulous excuse to accept a less-qualified person over a better one. say you have a 3.7 from a decent college and a 32. not amazing but definitely ok. you dont get in but the same school accepts people with 3.3 and 29. the excuse has routinely been 'clearly they interviewed better than you" or 'they were more well-rounded'. these are statements that can never be proven objectively. which is good. because that means they can never be disproven either. and that is how we explain urms beating out white guys. in the same way if you say oh you were all better than the baseline mcat 25 and gpa 2.8 that we know means you will succeed that is disinguenous. you just set the bar low enough to accomodate the outliers but for some reason you try to get 99% of your class from a different criterion. its just for 1% that you ignore that stuff.

If you choose to believe that the system is inherently unfair, that adcoms are disingenuous (and outright lying), and that it's one giant conspiracy, that's fine. You seem to have decided what's what in a way that makes you feel vindicated. Most people don't agree with you, though.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

why is there no outrage directed at the white people who get in with equally low stats? the assumption seems to be that only minorities make low scores and are somehow "stealing" spots. i dont get it.

do white people with low stats get in when urms with high stats dont and then the urms get told its because the white guys were more well-rounded and diverse and would contribute more to the class wellbeing?

just wondering. because if thats the case then im agaist that too. but i dont seem to think it happens that way.

 

[Law2Doc]

it can also be used to imply other things cant it?

just asking

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Will Ferrell]

I won't address the racial issues, because honestly, a doctor will need to work with and treat folks of all races, and so latent hostility for the supposed advantages of certain groups might make this an uncomfortable or poor career choice for you. Good luck.

You know how there's a "Godwin's Law." There should be a law on SDN that automatically gives a loss to the first person questioning another's ability to be a good physician. What's the problem with mmmmdonuts thinking AA is wrong? Is everyone who doesn't support AA a racist and going to be uncomfortable working with black and hispanic patients? BTW, I support AA and all. I appreciate your posts because you usually speak the truth.

 

[Bernito]

This is a previous post responding to a discussion of letting in URMs with a 31 MCAT compared to an average of 34 for other students:

31 vs. 34 MCAT. Med schools are telling us that its not all about the numbers. And we have learned that that is only a half truth. But another thing I have learned is that SDNers ARE all about the numbers.

But lets look a little deeper into these numbers. Lets say a student got a 34 on the April MCAT. If they took the exam 10 more times, would they get 34 each time? No way. Most likely they would average about 34 though. Given the score they must have done considerable preparation so they would not vary much from 34, possibly +/- 1. If the same is true for the 31, then is 31+/-1 significantly different from 34+/-1? Maybe.

Now if we take everyone who got a 34 and 31, and make them each take the exam 10 times. What would happen? Probably get something like 31+/-2 and 34+/-2. Is that significantly different? Borderline.

Now what about other factors. Race? We already know that a minority will more likely be in the 31 group than the 34. SE status? Same as race. Preparation? Which group is more likely to have taken a prep course? Those that took a 34. IMO the prep course translates to a minimum 2 points. Well if everyone was given the prep course would the averages still be 31 and 34? (For those that did take a prep course, try to think back at how many minorities were in your class, or at the testing centers on the weekend). What about schooling, K-12 and undergrad? Plus many other factors.

So, is a person that got a 34 more "deserving" than a person who got a 31? For the most part an ADCOM would say yes, but it is not as clear cut as 34 > 31 so yes. So is it "easier" for a URM to get accepted? Some may say so, but again it is not as clear cut as yes b/c getting a 31 is easier than getting a 34.

And finally, do the ends justify the means? ABSOLUTELY! Considering that minority doctors are significantly more likely to go back and work in under-served communities, then absolutely yes.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Not that I'm aware of.

suit yerself

 

[1Path]

do white people with low stats get in when urms with high stats dont and then the urms get told its because the white guys were more well-rounded and diverse and would contribute more to the class wellbeing?

This is called America BEFORE affirmative action and the fact that you specify white guys as opposed to including white women, makes it even more factual!

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

do white people with low stats get in when urms with high stats dont and then the urms get told its because the white guys were more well-rounded and diverse and would contribute more to the class wellbeing?

just wondering. because if thats the case then im agaist that too. but i dont seem to think it happens that way.

Are you saying that every Black/Hispanic applicant with extremely high stats is a lock for getting accepted everywhere they apply to??

 

[Ghost]

mmmmdonuts......i know what your problem is. it's your verbal score.

look if we're going to be blatantly disingenuous then theres no real reason to talk right? its funny that youre like oh they both got above the minimum requirements of an mcat of 12 and gpa of 1.0 so numbers were not technically ignored in the istance of accepting someone based on non-numerical aspects.

who is being disingenuous here? i think it is a fair assumption to say that a 3.0 and 30 would be the minumum requirement for many school. your attempt at humor, saying that my min req were too low (12 mcat and 1.0 gpa), only shows you can't logically refute what is said.

and yet oddly you decided to exclude quite a number of people who also surpass those mins. based on?

i mentioned nothing about excluding people who surpass the mins. if peope who surpassed the min reqs didn't get interviews, maybe their personal statement sucked or maybe they didn't have enough ec's.


jk is what schools said to you at the end of yur acceptance letter jk <---this makes it not an insult lol

actually, if it was a joke, it has been ongoing for two years now. man, those adcoms are funny bastards.

on another note, here are some of mmmmdonuts previous posts in other forums:

in the racial jokes from an attending thread:
did you ask her why she wasnt at home making more kids to blow themselves up for allah?

and in the gays in medicine thread:
evolution hates homos

and my favorite:
if you don't know what that word means, don't cry when you get rejected from medical school

who's cyring now mmmm?

you can see these on his profile under his previous posts. mmmm, i suggest if you get any interviews next year, don't wear a suit. you would probably be more comfortable in your sheets.

 

[mmmmdonuts]

This is called America BEFORE affirmative action!

you mean that all the urms used to be super-smart geniuses and now they aren't? that's odd

 

[Law2Doc]

You know how there's a "Godwin's Law." There should be a law on SDN that automatically gives a loss to the first person questioning another's ability to be a good physician. What's the problem with mmmmdonuts thinking AA is wrong? Is everyone who doesn't support AA a racist and going to be uncomfortable working with black and hispanic patients? BTW, I support AA and all. I appreciate your posts because you usually speak the truth.

I see a big difference between saying someone won't be a good doctor, and telling someone that medicine might be a bad career choice. Might be a matter of my own semantics, I suppose. While I'm not questioning anyones abilities, skillsets etc., I do think that if you are the type that harbors resentment for certain races (the vibe I was getting from some of the posts, particularly with the cagey language and emboldened clauses), then perhaps a field where you need to become intimately involved in the lives and bodies of folks of all races might not be an ideal match. But if I misread that poster, I certainly apologize.

 

[Rafa]

mmmm, i suggest if you get any interviews next year, don't wear a suit. you would probably be more comfortable in your sheets.

 

[Anastasis]

*goes to make some popcorn*

 

[mmmmdonuts]

Are you saying that every Black/Hispanic applicant with extremely high stats is a lock for getting accepted everywhere they apply to??

yes

is it your experience that that is not the case?

 

[mmmmdonuts]

mmmm, i suggest if you get any interviews next year, don't wear a suit. you would probably be more comfortable in your sheets.

i find it funny that this is an acceptable statement

you sound racist

 

[Will Ferrell]

yes

is it your experience that that is not the case?

definitely not true. blacks, hispanics with really high MCAT scores & GPAs do get rejected.

 

[Bernito]

on another note, here are some of mmmmdonuts previous posts in other forums:

in the racial jokes from an attending thread:
did you ask her why she wasnt at home making more kids to blow themselves up for allah?

and in the gays in medicine thread:
evolution hates homos

and my favorite:
if you don't know what that word means, don't cry when you get rejected from medical school

who's cyring now mmmm?

you can see these on his profile under his previous posts. mmmm, i suggest if you get any interviews next year, don't wear a suit. you would probably be more comfortable in your sheets.

Dont forget "damn thats ugly." (This was in response to a post about the beauty of a dark skinned african female).

 

[1Path]

you mean that all the urms used to be super-smart geniuses and now they aren't? that's odd

You know my personal preference is for 300 thread count or higher though they do tend to be pricey!