Is it better to apply as non-disadvantaged?

[lazyindy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Reading through the "My thoughts on the Admissions Process" thread, I stumbled upon this post by @LizzyM

"If the accrediting body for medical schools (LCME) assessed schools' efforts to recruit and matriculate low SES candidates as they do URM candidates, then we might have some traction in getting low SES applicants in the door in greater numbers. However, why would these candidates be better for society than any other candidates? Should they be admitted in larger numbers despite evidence that they have more difficulty in medical school. (AAMC data) In all likelihood, these students require more services (tutoring, counseling, etc) to be successful. Will you argue that a medical school should put its resources toward that population? We know that URM docs serve populations that are seeking to be cared for by physicians from their own group and you can tell by their faces (and sometimes their names) that they are "one of us". There is nothing to distinguish a non-URM physician who grew up poor from any other physician,, is there?"

So my question is would it better to apply as a non-disadvantaged applicant as opposed to to disadvantaged. My parents make less than 30k but if adcoms are going to be biased and assume disadvantaged students need more tutoring and counseling then isn't it just better to apply non-disadvantaged even if you are disadvantaged?

 

[Jennyfishy]

Only mark it if you feel like you grew up or faced circumstances that put you at a disadvantage relative to your peers (economic, academic, environmental, and so on). It is used to provide some context clues they can use to get a picture of who you are and where you are from. I imagine it only working against you if you designate it and grew up very comfortably (or better)

The post you reference was on a thread where people were arguing how we should recruit ppl based on SES more than race or other factors, but there is no strong evidence or data that supports poor folks going on to become docs and helping other poor folk relativr to a urm returning to their community to serve other underserved ppl (which was what LizzyM was responding to)

Edit: Forgot to mention that if you do mark it, some of your interviewers may ask about it and have you detail your "childhood." I was asked at both of my interviews what my parents' story was and why I consider myself disadvantaged (aside from what you write for the mini paragraph on the app)

 

[LizzyM]

Reading through the "My thoughts on the Admissions Process" thread, I stumbled upon this post by @LizzyM

"If the accrediting body for medical schools (LCME) assessed schools' efforts to recruit and matriculate low SES candidates as they do URM candidates, then we might have some traction in getting low SES applicants in the door in greater numbers. However, why would these candidates be better for society than any other candidates? Should they be admitted in larger numbers despite evidence that they have more difficulty in medical school. (AAMC data) In all likelihood, these students require more services (tutoring, counseling, etc) to be successful. Will you argue that a medical school should put its resources toward that population? We know that URM docs serve populations that are seeking to be cared for by physicians from their own group and you can tell by their faces (and sometimes their names) that they are "one of us". There is nothing to distinguish a non-URM physician who grew up poor from any other physician,, is there?"

So my question is would it better to apply as a non-disadvantaged applicant as opposed to to disadvantaged. My parents make less than 30k but if adcoms are going to be biased and assume disadvantaged students need more tutoring and counseling then isn't it just better to apply non-disadvantaged even if you are disadvantaged?

You won't be discriminated AGAINST if you self-identify as disadvantaged, it just provides additional context for your application meaning that it could help explain why you worked full-time every summer rather than volunteering in a lab or social service setting. Some schools do favor applicants who were disadvantaged in childhood (UCLA??) but you can't be sure it will give you a "leg up" over other applicants.
The additional counseling/tutoring... that is a reaction to the fact that as a group, medical students who identified as "disadvantaged" had a slightly lower graduation rate than other students. That suggests that some of them may need more support to successfully complete their schooling.

 

[Flashfan]

I was wondering the same thing. Even if I don't identify as disadvantaged, won't the new classification as E-1 (neither parent graduated college) make some adcoms lump me into a group of people that would "cost" the school more? I think in my state (low college graduation rates, low income levels) it won't be an unusual situation, but what about a private school that could just decide not to risk it if most people with my background require more resources?

Trying not to be paranoid right now. After all, I can't change my parent's educational background or my past.

 

[gyngyn]

I was wondering the same thing. Even if I don't identify as disadvantaged, won't the new classification as E-1 (neither parent graduated college) make some adcoms lump me into a group of people that would "cost" the school more? I think in my state (low college graduation rates, low income levels) it won't be an unusual situation, but what about a private school that could just decide not to risk it if most people with my background require more resources?

Trying not to be paranoid right now. After all, I can't change my parent's educational background or my past.

As previously stated, SES provides context. It will not hurt at all! It may help.

 

[gyngyn]

Some schools do favor applicants who were disadvantaged in childhood (UCLA??).

Drew. And others...