Ask, for a moment, why the L.A. Times would write such a story. Because it makes good news: a long and hard fought struggle, a rags to riches story, a comforting reassurance that the american dream is still alive. would the story be the same if our hero had a 4.0 at MIT and a 45 MCAT and blazed her way into med school? Of course not. Without the struggle, there is no quick and easy identification to our reader's own personal challenges. Her story is a creampuff of a story, offering a glimmer of hope to us all. Or so it was intended.
the SDN forum, obviously, was not its intended audience.
Nearly everyone reading this forum has suffered through the same torturous route and many of us are still wait listed or not accepted anywhere even though many of us have higher scores, equally diverse and compelling backgrounds, and equally strong hopes and dreams.
For every one rural latina who makes it through and breaks an LA Times story, there are plenty of others who did not have an admissions committee member recognize a younger form of themselves in an applicant and overrule the rest of the committee into accepting her.
You could argue that academic standards do not alone make a good doctor, but academic standards alone make the basis for many of the rejection letters we have seen. Is it fair then that one glory-case can slide through? Does she, because of her background and inspite of her credentials, merit a place more than others?
The article does nothing but highlight the bias of the writer, the arbitrary nature of a completely opaque selection process, and the triumph of one small inadequately prepared fish spared the fate of many fitter fishes in the medical admissions shark pool.
Bitter? No. I'm accepted. But I'm aware of what I have gone through to reach that acceptance and I desire to have a respect for my peers when I reach medical school for having accomplished the same.
