Is institutional racism a generally accepted notion among admissions committees?

[and 99 others]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know that some people don't recognize it as "a thing" but the reason I ask is because I can see this or a related topic coming up in interviews. A lot of my application revolves around working in disadvantaged communities as a doctor and addressing social disparities for minorities. If asked to elaborate on this, I would be talking about how, through my activities and experiences, I saw how race plays a primary role in minorities being able to access social and health services. To me, this seemed like a self-evident thing and the reason why so many schools emphasize service to underprivileged and minority communities. But I have been seeing some dismissive rhetoric about this topic recently and also know that mentioning politically charged topics in interviews is a bad idea. However, I feel like it is unavoidable in my case as it is such a large part of my app.

P.S. I'd rather this thread didn't devolve into a flame war. Not interested in individual users' opinions on the topic of institutional racism, just on how it is viewed by admissions committees, in general.

 

[RedRoses]

Regardless of what any specific adcom believes, you should be selecting schools that best reflect your application. There are schools that explicitly express this perspective in their mission statement, while others don’t. If you’re interviewing at a school that’s not big on primary care or doesn’t have institutional directives, clubs, programs, or extracurriculars that are noticeably shaped by these values or motivations, it probably isn’t best to present your candidacy from such a perspective.

 

[Bonne Nuit]

I know that some people don't recognize it as "a thing" but the reason I ask is because I can see this or a related topic coming up in interviews. A lot of my application revolves around working in disadvantaged communities as a doctor and addressing social disparities for minorities. If asked to elaborate on this, I would be talking about how, through my activities and experiences, I saw how race plays a primary role in minorities being able to access social and health services. To me, this seemed like a self-evident thing and the reason why so many schools emphasize service to underprivileged and minority communities. But I have been seeing some dismissive rhetoric about this topic recently and also know that mentioning politically charged topics in interviews is a bad idea. However, I feel like it is unavoidable in my case as it is such a large part of my app.

P.S. I'd rather this thread didn't devolve into a flame war. Not interested in individual users' opinions on the topic of institutional racism, just on how it is viewed by admissions committees, in general.

An actual adcom should weigh in, but I've been operating under the assumption that nothing that was covered in my MCAT prep is too controversial to discuss in my primary/secondary/interview. The concept of institutionalized racism is well-defined in sociology and was fair game for P/S on the MCAT (see Khan Academy P/S videos).

 

[pewpew95]

To add onto what RedRoses said, my personal statement had a similar story and I talked about underprivileged groups during my interviews (in fact, some of my MMI's mentioned these issues); however, I never used the words institutional racism. I feel like institutional racism has a heavier political meaning behind it, while talking about how you want to make medicine more accessible to underprivileged groups speaks to your empathy and love for service. I would say go for it, but just don't say institutional racism specifically. Choose your words wisely.

 

[Medic741]

I think it’s *how* you approach this hot button issue that will be under the microscope and what they’ll pay attention to. Some things to pay attention to during those conversations if it gets brought up

-is my demeanor professional and controlled? Getting worked up and emotional during these conversations would be a red flag, and is a great time for you as an applicant to show that you can maintain composure while having really difficult talks on sensitive issues.

-is this person demeaning another group (ORM) while supporting the rights of URM? There’s a way to bring these issues up where everyone wins and another which bashes one group while supporting the other. This isn’t a good look in a professional application.

-do you have a well informed perspective that takes into account many sides of the problem? In an interview your ability to take the thing your passionate about and at least recognize and validate the other side of the argument will be examined. It would be beneficial to show that you understand why things are the way they are or what obstacles exist that have lead to the current situation and what ideas you have to overcome those obstacles.

I think you’re pretty insightful for asking this question in the way you have. Just keep an eye out that the ADCOM pays attention to how we act/respond/think more than the content of what’s in our writing. Just my observation from getting over that halfway hump of school

 

[LizzyM]

I think that systemic racism is a better phrase. I am reading Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen by David Hilfiker MD and I learned that when Social Security started, it excluded domestics and agricultural workers which had a disproportional effect on African-Americans. That was a systemic problem. I'm sure there are many more contemporary examples as well.

 

[and 99 others]

I think that systemic racism is a better phrase. I am reading Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen by David Hilfiker MD and I learned that when Social Security started, it excluded domestics and agricultural workers which had a disproportional effect on African-Americans. That was a systemic problem. I'm sure there are many more contemporary examples as well.

Yes! Thanks so much for this, I talk about dysfunctional social systems all the time in my essays and such so this phrasing is perfect. Though I think I will do my best to just talk about the actual systemic problems and how those affected my perception of justice and try to avoid potentially inflammatory words like racism.

 

[gonnif]

There is an excellent article in the Journal of Social Science Medicine on the topic
Systemic Racism and US Heath Care

 

[deleted972488]

I would not want to be associated with any medical school that doesn’t recognize institutional racism as a real problem. If they are going to reject you for including that in your application, then perhaps it is not a good fit, especially since it seems like addressing disparities is important to you.

 

[and 99 others]

I would not want to be associated with any medical school that doesn’t recognize institutional racism as a real problem. If they are going to reject you for including that in your application, then perhaps it is not a good fit, especially since it seems like addressing disparities is important to you.

Honestly there are probably very few schools who, as an entire institution, denounce institutional racism. But I am wondering more so about internal biases individual interviewers may have and how prolific these views are across the general population of admissions members. I realize that getting a definitive answer is likely impossible but just interested in different perspectives!

 

[deleted804295]

I think it's possible to describe systemic racism without necessarily using the words.

That way adcoms that know about systemic racism will know what you're talking about and those that don't know will better understand the concept.

I think a lot of people freak out around the word 'racism' and I completely understand why. You can tell your story without making it risky by adding in buzzwords.

 

[907914]

In a similar vein, I directly talked about in one of my secondaries about the structural and systemic issues that make the health of veterans played around like a token by policy makers. I have an interview at this schools so it likely didn’t hurt me. So, if that helps, you should be able to talk about structural/systemic issues without repercussions if you have the evidence to back up your claims.

 

[Osminog]

It'd be pretty ironic if you were to mention institutional racism during a medical school interview. Medical schools are institutions, and they openly discriminate against white and Asian people. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more clear-cut example of "institutional racism" than that.

During my interviews, I discussed my work in poor, underserved communities in very simple, practical terms. I didn't throw around trivia from the P/S section of the MCAT, nor did I make any blanket accusations of racism against the "system." That being said, given the political leanings of most medical school administrators and faculty members, bringing up left-wing talking points would more likely help you than hurt you.

 

[dr_kateb]

Oh boy

 

[Bonne Nuit]

P.S. I'd rather this thread didn't devolve into a flame war. Not interested in individual users' opinions on the topic of institutional racism, just on how it is viewed by admissions committees, in general.

Well, we lasted 13 posts, LOL.

 

[Osminog]

Well, we lasted 13 posts, LOL.

Oh, please. Other users were expressing their opinions on "institutional racism" in posts prior to mine (e.g., "I would not want to be associated with any medical school that doesn’t recognize institutional racism as a real problem"). I think you're just singling my post out because it's expressing an opinion that you, and likely others in this thread, happen to disagree with.

 

[dr_kateb]

Oh, please. Other users were expressing their opinions on "institutional racism" in posts prior to mine (e.g., "I would not want to be associated with any medical school that doesn’t recognize institutional racism as a real problem"). I think you're just singling my post out because it's expressing an opinion that you, and likely others in this thread, happen to disagree with.

It’s not worth it man. Just let them have their little circlejerk.

 

[907914]

Oh, please. Other users were expressing their opinions on "institutional racism" in posts prior to mine (e.g., "I would not want to be associated with any medical school that doesn’t recognize institutional racism as a real problem"). I think you're just singling my post out because it's expressing an opinion that you, and likely others in this thread, happen to disagree with.

An opinion is a matter of subjectivity. You are denying an objective truth.

 

[deleted804295]

It'd be pretty ironic if you were to mention institutional racism during a medical school interview. Medical schools are institutions, and they openly discriminate against white and Asian people. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more clear-cut example of "institutional racism" than that.

During my interviews, I discussed my work in poor, underserved communities in very simple, practical terms. I didn't throw around trivia from the P/S section of the MCAT, nor did I make any blanket accusations of racism against the "system." That being said, given the political leanings of most medical school administrators and faculty members, bringing up left-wing talking points would more likely help you than hurt you.

Discrimination implies unjust treatment.

 

[deleted804295]

@Osminog I think the premed subforum isn't the best place to start arguments about politics.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

Following

 

[907914]

@Osminog I think the premed subforum isn't the best place to start arguments about politics.

@Sunbodi knows that Elmo gets fired up. Gonna go all Elmo up in here.

Serious not though, I hate that we refer to literally talking about the state of race in America as a political issue. It isn’t politics, it’s people.

 

[deleted987519]

Discrimination implies unjust treatment.

Sort admission data by race and make your own conclusions

 

[deleted804295]

@Sunbodi knows that Elmo gets fired up. Gonna go all Elmo up in here.

Serious not though, I hate that we refer to literally talking about the state of race in America as a political issue. It isn’t politics, it’s people.

It's a necessary conversation to be had but due to the divisive nature of it, it's political.

We all agree that we need to fix injustices but many disagree on the ways that it should be done. Having abrasive language surrounding it as has been seen in this thread is not the way to go about it.

 

[deleted804295]

Sort admission data by race and make your own conclusions

I see no injustices by sorting the admission data by race. The data is just data, it says nothing of the stories that surround each individual.

We can have a superstar applicant with a 3.2 GPA and a 505 MCAT and a 4.0 528 automaton who would make a terrible doctor.

Edit: To reiterate I do not think this is the subforum to have these conversations. Feel free to make another one of the 1000s of threads in sociopolitical about race and @ me or DM me if you want to further discuss this. I do not want to take attention away from OP

 

[907914]

Sort admission data by race and make your own conclusions

Sort arrest data, conviction data, rates of maternal death during childbirth, rates of childhood poverty, loan interest rates at equal income, housing proximity to waste treatment/factories, rates of excessive force on students, rates of student arrests for similar actions, and so on - and then make your own conclusions.

 

[deleted972488]

Sort admission data by race and make your own conclusions

GPAs and MCAT scores are not everything.

 

[deleted987519]

GPAs and MCAT scores are not everything.

Maybe not...but it is hard to imagine its a coincidence that for applicants with low stats, blacks/hispanics are almost 10X more likely to be admitted than whites/asians...I am not interested in debating anything, I personally think Osminog's point is well-taken (thought stated abrasively) that this is a process that clearly favors liberal thinking so to question whether ADCOMs would support the notion of institutional racism is a little silly

 

[gyngyn]

This must become a civil discussion in order to remain open.

 

[907914]

GPAs and MCAT scores are not everything.

I would actually argue that GPAs and MCATs tell us everything - we can see that URM applicants, despite having a markedly increased rate of admissions at >3.0/>500 when compared to ORM applicants, their overall rate of admissions is still lower than ORM applicants because so many URM have ‘low stats.’ The only two possibilities are 1) URM applicants are inherently worse at standardized tests and academics and the Nazis were correct or 2) structural and systemic issues are pervasive throughout the entire educational system that puts URM applicants at an inherent disadvantage, even accounting for equal propensity for intelligence and performance at birth.

TL;DR Unless you think the Nazis were correct, then you agree structural and institutionalized racism is a thing.

 

[907914]

favors liberal thinking

It is not merely liberal thinking - it is the reality of the world/country/system we live in.

 

[beattheprocess]

I see no injustices by sorting the admission data by race. The data is just data, it says nothing of the stories that surround each individual.

We can have a superstar applicant with a 3.2 GPA and a 505 MCAT and a 4.0 528 automaton who would make a terrible doctor.

Edit: To reiterate I do not think this is the subforum to have these conversations. Feel free to make another one of the 1000s of threads in sociopolitical about race and @ me or DM me if you want to further discuss this. I do not want to take attention away from OP

TIL that black and Hispanic applicants with high stats make terrible doctors

 

[deleted972488]

I would actually argue that GPAs and MCATs tell us everything - we can see that URM applicants, despite having a markedly increased rate of admissions at >3.0/>500 when compared to ORM applicants, their overall rate of admissions is still lower than ORM applicants because so many URM have ‘low stats.’ The only two possibilities are 1) URM applicants are inherently worse at standardized tests and academics and the Nazis were correct or 2) structural and systemic issues are pervasive throughout the entire educational system that puts URM applicants at an inherent disadvantage, even accounting for equal propensity for intelligence and performance at birth.

TL;DR Unless you think the Nazis were correct, then you agree structural and institutionalized racism is a thing.

I mean that they are not the only factors used to decide whether to interview or admit an applicant.

 

[deleted804295]

TIL that black and Hispanic applicants with high stats make terrible doctors

I'm not sure I said that high stats applicants make terrible doctors 🙂 I said:

"We can have... a 4.0 528 automaton who would make a terrible doctor."

 

[Osminog]

I would actually argue that GPAs and MCATs tell us everything - we can see that URM applicants, despite having a markedly increased rate of admissions at >3.0/>500 when compared to ORM applicants, their overall rate of admissions is still lower than ORM applicants because so many URM have ‘low stats.’ The only two possibilities are 1) URM applicants are inherently worse at standardized tests and academics and the Nazis were correct or 2) structural and systemic issues are pervasive throughout the entire educational system that puts URM applicants at an inherent disadvantage, even accounting for equal propensity for intelligence and performance at birth.

TL;DR Unless you think the Nazis were correct, then you agree structural and institutionalized racism is a thing.

A moderator says that the discussion must remain civil, so you decide that it's the perfect time to start comparing people who disagree with you to Nazis.

 

[beattheprocess]

I'm not sure I said that high stats applicants make terrible doctors 🙂 I said:

"We can have... a 4.0 528 automaton who would make a terrible doctor."

And I said specifically black and hispanic applicants. Since med schools are looking for who would make a good doctor regardless of stats, something has to explain the massive discrepancy between different races. The median MCATs of black, hispanic, white, asian acceptees are 505, 507, 511, 513 respectively. So according to you, here are the possibilities
1. asians and whites with lower stats make terrible doctors
2. blacks and hispanics with higher stats make terrible doctors
3. both are true
I'm going to let you figure out how ridiculous that is and realize that there is clear favoritism (aka discrimination) for certain races.

 

[deleted972488]

Maybe not...but it is hard to imagine its a coincidence that for applicants with low stats, blacks/hispanics are almost 10X more likely to be admitted than whites/asians...I am not interested in debating anything, I personally think Osminog's point is well-taken (thought stated abrasively) that this is a process that clearly favors liberal thinking so to question whether ADCOMs would support the notion of institutional racism is a little silly

I never claimed it was a coincidence. URM status is an important factor. The world needs more doctors who are URM.

 

[deleted804295]

A moderator says that the discussion must remain civil, so you decide that it's the perfect time to start comparing people who disagree with you to Nazis.

I think @MemeLord was stating that the belief that URMs have lower outcomes even when controlled for social and environmental factors is nazi rhetoric.

 

[init2020]

A moderator says that the discussion must remain civil, so you decide that it's the perfect time to start comparing people who disagree with you to Nazis.

It only becomes an uncivil discussion when someone has "wrong think" lol This post will likely be "moderated"

 

[beattheprocess]

TL;DR Unless you think the Nazis were correct, then you agree structural and institutionalized racism is a thing.

It is not merely liberal thinking - it is the reality of the world/country/system we live in.

"If you don't agree with me you're a Nazi or wrong" Do you people listen to yourselves? Good lord.

 

[deleted987519]

Anyway OP: as you can tell, you would only be in trouble if you tried to negate the idea of institutional racism...you will be fine

 

[Sephirakra]

And I said specifically black and hispanic applicants. Since med schools are looking for who would make a good doctor regardless of stats, something has to explain the massive discrepancy between different races. The median MCATs of black, hispanic, white, asian acceptees are 505, 507, 511, 513 respectively. So according to you, here are the possibilities
1. asians and whites with lower stats make terrible doctors
2. blacks and hispanics with higher stats make terrible doctors
3. both are true
I'm going to let you figure out how ridiculous that is and realize that there is clear favoritism for certain races.

Your initial jump still makes no sense, so this whole digression is nothing more than a hollow "gotcha." You're right, you did specify black and Hispanic applicants, but Sunbodi didn't. Your whole argument hinges on changing possibilities to absolutes, which doesn't pass the laugh test. Also, your listing of median MCAT scores (citation needed, by the way) is nothing but superfluous in relation to your point.

 

[Dream of the Endless]

Maybe I need to replace my contacts, but I'm sure OP pointed out this wasn't a post for you to give your opinions/flame on race. Back to the main topic, I think many schools are cognizant of systemic racism. They elect diversity boards (That send out all those lovely come to our school cause we treasure diversity emails) and, from what I hear, are incorporating more diversity into the ADCOMs who make final decisions on candidacy. I don't doubt they are aware, but how much it plays a role (especially at the higher tiers) is a different topic.

 

[907914]

"If you don't agree with me you're a Nazi or wrong" Do you people listen to yourselves? Good lord.

Is that what I said? No - the idea that someone is inherently worse off because of their race is Nazi rhetoric. Do you think that URMs disproportionately do poorly because they are inherently worse off? Or do you acknowledge that there are structural systems in place that disadvantage them?

 

[Bonne Nuit]

It only becomes an uncivil discussion when someone has "wrong think" lol This post will likely be "moderated"

Why not participate in good faith and see where that gets you?

 

[deleted804295]

And I said specifically black and hispanic applicants. Since med schools are looking for who would make a good doctor regardless of stats, something has to explain the massive discrepancy between different races. The median MCATs of black, hispanic, white, asian acceptees are 505, 507, 511, 513 respectively. So according to you, here are the possibilities
1. asians and whites with lower stats make terrible doctors
2. blacks and hispanics with higher stats make terrible doctors
3. both are true
I'm going to let you figure out how ridiculous that is and realize that there is clear favoritism (aka discrimination) for certain races.

I'm not sure your framework on my statement is fair so I'm not going to operate from your framework.

I will however address your concerns. There are differences in median MCATs because there are things that admissions committees desire in URM applicants that aren't seen from the larger applicant pool. To begin with:

1. URMs are more likely to practice in URM communities. These are disadvantaged communities that have the worst health outcomes and are in need of physicians that have racial concordance as well as physicians that understand their struggle.
2. URMs are by definition underrepresented in medicine. Recruiting URMs fixes racial disparities seen in the system.

I suggest you read into the AAMCs designation on URMs. I also recommend you read this scientific paper along with the hundreds of other papers on URM recruitment:

The significance of recruiting underrepresented minorities in medicine: an examination of the need for effective approaches used in admissions by higher education institutions - PMC

The purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of recruiting underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM). This would include African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The research findings support the belief that URMs, upon ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[deleted804295]

"If you don't agree with me you're a Nazi or wrong" Do you people listen to yourselves? Good lord.

I'm not going to make any judgements on your background in debate but I would recommend you read into the term strawman.

 

[gyngyn]

I hold out a glimmer of hope that we can get back on topic.

 

[Dream of the Endless]

I hold out a glimmer of hope that we can get back on topic.

What do you have to say on the topic being from the position of interest? For those on topic, most are merely speculating. Have you seen/heard anything?

 

[beattheprocess]

Your initial jump still makes no sense, so this whole digression is nothing more than a hollow "gotcha." You're right, you did specify black and Hispanic applicants, but Sunbodi didn't. Your whole argument hinges on changing possibilities to absolutes, which doesn't pass the laugh test. Also, your listing of median MCAT scores (citation needed, by the way) is nothing but superfluous in relation to your point.

It makes perfect sense. Medical schools are supposedly looking for who makes the best doctor which is independent of MCAT/GPA, yet somehow there is a massive difference between races? It's a weak defense for the obvious sTrUctuRal rAciSm that's occurring.

I'm not sure your framework on my statement is fair so I'm not going to operate from your framework.

I will however address your concerns. There are differences in median MCATs because there are things that admissions committees desire in URM applicants that aren't seen from the larger applicant pool. To begin with:

1. URMs are more likely to practice in URM communities. These are disadvantaged communities that have the worst health outcomes and are in need of physicians that have racial concordance as well as physicians that understand their struggle.
2. URMs are by definition underrepresented in medicine. Recruiting URMs fixes racial disparities seen in the system.

I suggest you read into the AAMCs designation on URMs. I also recommend you read this scientific paper along with the hundreds of other papers on URM recruitment:

The significance of recruiting underrepresented minorities in medicine: an examination of the need for effective approaches used in admissions by higher education institutions - PMC

The purpose of this paper is to examine the significance of recruiting underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM). This would include African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The research findings support the belief that URMs, upon ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cool. That's justifies the obvious racism in admissions?

I'm not going to make any judgements on your background in debate but I would recommend you read into the term strawman.

Is that what I said? No - the idea that someone is inherently worse off because of their race is Nazi rhetoric. Do you think that URMs disproportionately do poorly because they are inherently worse off? Or do you acknowledge that there are structural systems in place that disadvantage them?

Jesus Christ. That's exactly what you said.

"TL;DR Unless you think the Nazis were correct, then you agree structural and institutionalized racism is a thing."

If you rearrange the sentence you essentially get what I said. That's not a strawman. I suggest you look up what a strawman is so you can stop using it as a red herring.