Is it easier to get into med school if you're not white?

[lobo.solo]

But do you want a class of people who just passed or a class of people who not only passed but excelled? If I were an admin, I wouldn't be looking for people who could graduate in four years. That would already be a given. My bar would be much higher: I would be looking for people who would become leaders in medicine, people who 20 years down the line would be turning out NEJM papers every six months, people who would become the very best doctors in the nation. I wouldn't settle for passing.

but you are not an admin, so who cares what you think or want!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ashley1989]

Ohhh but this website is perfect for wild speculation And more recent data for median/average MCAT of black med school applicants suggests not much has changed.

Haha I know wild speculation is rampant here and it can be awfully fun but be careful it can be hurtful as well!

And you were saying that blacks had a higher rate of dropping out and not finishing medical school in time. What does that have to do with MCAT scores? Give me recent, concrete proof that supports your goose chases of speculations and then we will be going somewhere haha. Until then....?

 

[sotto voce]

but you are not an admin, so who cares what you think or want!

True, we're all noob pre-meds

 

[seracus]

but you are not an admin, so who cares what you think or want!

Touche! I would expect, however, that real adcoms look for students who will excel (not just pass) in their respective schools. LizzyM did have a great point, though, that the definition of 'excellence' for a particular school depends on its mission statement and may not be connected to academic success (grades, standardized test scores, and, indirectly, residency placement).

 

[Ashley1989]

True, we're all noob pre-meds

Exactly

 

[lobo.solo]

MCAT score correlates strongly with USMLE Step 1.

Mediocre MCAT ==> Mediocre Step 1 ==> Mediocre Doctor

Mediocre? A mediocre doctor is not one who scores low on a test....is one that is able to positively impact the health outcomes of his patients. You have to have a different set of skills/intelligence to make your patients adhere to treatment regimen. this is not measure on a TEST.

 

[sotto voce]

Mediocre? A mediocre doctor is not one who scores low on a test....is one that is able to positively impact the health outcomes of his patients. You have to have a different set of skills/intelligence to make your patients adhere to treatment regimen. this is not measure on a TEST.

You have to have the right diagnosis first, which requires basic science knowledge, which can be demonstrated via the MCAT and Step I.

 

[Ashley1989]

You have to have the right diagnosis first, which requires basic science knowledge, which can be demonstrated via the MCAT and Step I.

And suddenly a doctor with a mediocre Step I score has no basic science knowledge and will be completely incompetent when it comes to diagnosing their patients? And don't forget of course that somehow the MCAT score factors into the ability of a doctor to diagnose as well, right? *sarcasm*

Not to mention someone who has gotten to the point of diagnosing patients has clearly demonstrated that they have the knowledge of the "basic sciences" and much more. Now whether they were average or above average in undergrad, medical
school, or beyond is a based on many different things but any doctor should be able to diagnose the majority of their patients pretty accurately.

Essentially what I am saying is that it is a given that a doctor should be able to diagnose properly a majority of the time. Does that make them a good doctor? No, it just makes them a damn doctor. What makes them an EXCELLENT doctor is measured in un-standardized-testable things like how they act with their patients.

 

[sotto voce]

And suddenly a doctor with a mediocre Step I score has no basic science knowledge and will be completely incompetent when it comes to diagnosing their patients. And don't forget of course that somehow the MCAT score factors into the ability of a doctor to diagnose as well.

Not to mention someone who has gotten to the point of diagnosing patients has clearly demonstrated that they have the knowledge of the "basic sciences" and much more. Now whether they were average or above average in undergrad, medical
school, or beyond is a based on many different things but any doctor should be able to diagnose the majority of their patients pretty accurately.

Correct. Now you're getting it.

 

[lobo.solo]

You have to have the right diagnosis first, which requires basic science knowledge, which can be demonstrated via the MCAT and Step I.

I have seen Drs interacting with patients for 3 years at my job. They all seem smart, regardless of race, but the "BEST" ones are the ones who can engage their patients in a comfortable relationship with them. The other smart ones.... are MEDIOCRE because they are not effectively applying medicine to help their patients. Is not all about having the knowledge to answer some questions in a standardized test, but being able to put it in practice in the real world with patients who often have complicated life stories.

 

[Ashley1989]

Correct. Now you're getting it.

Now I'm getting it as if I was the one who was initially misguided?

I think in the last comment I should've put more question marks to avoid any confusion. I am essentially pointing out what I feel is incorrect in your argument. Read it again with that in mind.

 

[sotto voce]

I have seen Drs interacting with patients for 3 years at my job. They all seem smart, regardless of race, but the "BEST" ones are the ones who can engage their patients in a comfortable relationship with them. The other smart ones.... are MEDIOCRE because they are not effectively applying medicine to help their patients. Is not all about having the knowledge to answer some questions in a standardized test, but being able to put it in practice in the real world with patients who often have complicated life stories.

So your argument is that if you perform poorly on Step 1, you somehow still have that knowledge but just weren't able to apply it during the test. But, when you're a doctor, somehow you can apply that knowledge. Makes sense bro.

 

[Ashley1989]

So your argument is that if you perform poorly on Step 1, you somehow still have that knowledge but just weren't able to apply it during the test. But, when you're a doctor, somehow you can apply that knowledge. Makes sense bro.

Oh my goodness!!!!! Someone cannot "do poorly" to the extent that it will be a danger to the patients and still PASS ON. We are speaking of relative levels of excellence, it's not like someone can be average, or even be mediocre, still pass and not have the knowledge needed and suddenly start killing off patients as a result! It is the assumption that if you pass (whether barely or easily) you are safe to move on! Thats why the people who do better are put into more competitive and demanding residencies, right?

Edit: if I'm misunderstanding any of the processes or guidelines I will gladly stand corrected.

 

[flodhi1]

Actually, one more thing: Black students tend to take longer to graduate from med school. The four-year graduation rate for Black students is below 60%. For Asians and Whites, it's above 80%.

To answer your question, in 1995 (most recent AAMC data), 6.7% of Black students dropped out for academic reasons.

In 1995, 0.7% of White students dropped out for academic reasons.

https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf

You do realize that it's 2012 right? and that there are better support systems placed in academic institutes especially the one that I will be attending. The Associate Dean of Admissions at my medical school said that in the 1990s close to 20 % URM students were not making it through but due to progression (something you don't understand since you're bringing up a 17 year old article) now there are hardly any URM failing out of VCU medical school at all. Now I'm not saying this is the case at all medical schools but I can damn well assure you that brining up an article from 17 years ago does not define medical students today. By the way can I pull up an article from the 1960s so I can prove that racism exists today? lord have mercy I never imagined that some people could be this idiotic on this forum.

 

[sotto voce]

You do realize that it's 2012 right? and that there are better support systems placed in academic institutes especially the one that I will be attending. The Associate Dean of Admissions at my medical school said that in the 1990s close to 20 % URM students were not making it through but due to progression (something you don't understand since you're bringing up a 17 year old article) now there are hardly any URM failing out of VCU medical school at all. Now I'm not saying this is the case at all medical schools but I can damn well assure you that brining up an article from 17 years ago does not define medical students today. By the way can I pull up an article from the 1960s so I can prove that racism exists today? lord have mercy I never imagined that some people could be this idiotic on this forum.

It was published in 2007 by AAMC. I too would like to see newer data.

 

[Aerus]

So you think adding diversity to healthcare is more important then adding intelligent physicians? Being black doesn't make you suddenly "understand" the shortcomings of being poor (you might come from a rich black family) and being white doesn't suddenly make you non-empathetic to the poor. Adcoms have this stupid notion that adding more URMs is better because patients open up to them more but this is completely false. Socioeconomic factors bring people together more often then race does. Rich people hang with rich people, the poor with the poor. To a rich black man 100 dollars might seem like nothing while to a poor Asian or white it can mean a weeks worth of food. Welcome to America where we attempt to apologize for the sins of our European founders through reverse racism

What I "think" is that you need to learn to read more carefully. I never said I agreed with this. This is apparently what the rest of society believes. I'm all for getting rid of the URM thing. The only thing I ever said in the post was that URM status is used to increase diversity in order for them to give the best healthcare possible.

What I didn't do is say that I agree with diversity = best healthcare ever. I think society should be completely race blind.


Quoted for you to reread.

The point of it is (while I still disagree) is diversity.

 

[flodhi1]

It was published in 2007 by AAMC. I too would like to see newer data.

You're using data from 1995 in a 2007 publication to convince premeds in 2012, do you understand how ridiculous your argument is turning out to be?

 

[sotto voce]

You're using data from 1995 in a 2007 publication to convince premeds in 2012, do you understand how ridiculous your argument is turning out to be?

You've never had a textbook that's a few years old? You're grasping at straws bro

 

[MedPR]

What I "think" is that you need to learn to read more carefully. I never said I agreed with this. This is apparently what the rest of society believes. I'm all for getting rid of the URM thing. The only thing I ever said in the post was that URM status is used to increase diversity in order for them to give the best healthcare possible.

What I didn't do is say that I agree with diversity = best healthcare ever. I think society should be completely race blind.


Quoted for you to reread.

"Completely race blind"? There are health risks associated with certain races. Being race blind would harm healthcare.

 

[flodhi1]

You've never had a textbook that's a few years old? You're grasping at straws bro

17 years is a few years? okay let's change some of the medical school curriculum and the field of medicine back into 1995 and totally forget about any advancements that occurred in between. You're seriously grasping at straws bro.

 

[osprey099]

Well, according to the aamc charts, if you're asian, then it's harder to get in. But whites are the second hardest. Everyone else is basically URM..

 

[sotto voce]

17 years is a few years? okay let's change some of the medical school curriculum and the field of medicine back into 1995 and totally forget about any advancements that occurred in between. You're seriously grasping at straws bro.

It would be more like a book that's five years old that cited data from 12 years before that.

But yes, I would like to see more recent data. We've already established the fact that race-based AA was a profoundly irresponsible and reckless policy, as recently as 1995. Maybe it's changed since then idk. We can agree on that much.

 

[Aerus]

"Completely race blind"? There are health risks associated with certain races. Being race blind would harm healthcare.

No, I meant SOCIETY to be race blind, as in patients should not care about what race their doctor is. Like what NickNaylor has recounted, some patients refuse to open up with any doctor except with one of their own race.

But, out of curiosity, how do health risks associated with certain races and being race blind relate to being harmful to healthcare? Pardon me if I don't see the connection right away.

 

[WhizoMD]

It would be more like a book that's five years old that cited data from 12 years before that.

But yes, I would like to see more recent data. We've already established the fact that race-based AA was a profoundly irresponsible and reckless policy, as recently as 1995. Maybe it's changed since then idk. We can agree on that much.

sooo, ~6.5% attrition due to academic reasons constitutes a "profoundly irresponsible and reckless policy"?

Also, the n for blacks is (understandably) relatively low and (especially considering the study data is from 1987, 1992, and 1995) made up of a fairly high % of students that HBCU's were taking a chance on (MCAT <27). So this study has very limited relevance to the discussion of URM admissions serving as a barrier to white/asian admissions

 

[sotto voce]

sooo, ~6.5% attrition due to academic reasons constitutes a "profoundly irresponsible and reckless policy"?

Also, the n for blacks is (understandably) relatively low and (especially considering the study data is from 1987, 1992, and 1995) made up of a fairly high % of students that HBCU's were taking a chance on (MCAT <27). So this study has very limited relevance to the discussion of URM admissions serving as a barrier to white/asian admissions

And finally, debunking the myth that people "connect" with doctors of the same race:

"Median duration of mental health discussion was significantly shorter in interactions with non-white patients than with white patients, particularly when the patient and physician were black."

Drats, the data is from 2009, nevermind this study is totally worthless.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0701/p91.html

Can we sum up this discussion?

1. Are more likely to drop out of medical school
2. Take longer to graduate from medical school
3. Perform worse on the USMLE Step 1
4. Are less likely to get a residency because of USMLE Step 1 score
5. Are less likely to be board certified
6. May provide poor care (unclear at this point)

This is what you get when you create diversity just for the sake of diversity. Checkmate.

 

[LizzyM]

Q: If no URM were admitted to medical school, what proportion of those non-URM who do not matriculate in a given year (are not admitted to any school) would still be without an offer of admission?

A: I don't have my handy tables with me but I'm going to venture an estimate: The proportion of non-matriculants who would still be sitting out in the cold if no URM were admitted to any US medical school (including Howard and the other historically black institutions) is ~89%.

(about half of the ~35,000 applicants per year are not admitted to any school. About 10% of those who are admitted are URM and 10% of those who are not admitted are URM. So, currently ~15,750 non-URM do not get admitted to any school. If there were no URM, the number of non-URM who would not be admitted to any school would be ~14,000)

Read the whole thread here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=306866

 

[damitusbrown]

When I said I was admitted to BC with a 1500, I meant 1500/2400. Just because I didn't have enough money to afford SAT prep classes and just because my parents and I did not know what the SAT was until my senior year of high school should not ruin my chances.

"1. You probably got into BC on your own merit. Don't downplay a 1500 on the SAT (hopefully that's out of 1600; if not, I hope to God you're never my doctor)."

It kind of funny how people who were in my classes especial my roommate who got a 2300 on his SAT received a C- in the Gen chem class where I received a B+. I could honestly say that I would be at harvard if my parents were richer. Not saying that all blacks are poor and all whites are rich, but statistics show it in the overall population.

 

[Ishihara]

 

[SpecterGT260]

Can we treat lack of familiarity with vbulletin the same way?
Quote button

 

[LittleLuck]

How does a thread like this go to 4 pages after being discussed a million times already. Who cares if URM's have it easier, that shouldn't get you mad, you should just work harder to get in. The reasons they have it easier is because there aren't that many blacks/hispanics that are allowed the opportunity to get to a stage where they can apply to med school. Let's be real, life isnt fair and a white doctor will propably wont take themselves to the urban areas to care for black people, thats just reality, so we need black doctors to go back and give back. Stop crying, yes its easier for them, doesnt mean they are more stupid. Med school isnt that hard where you need to be super smart to be a doctor, give me a break, stop believing in this myth. Its almost impossible to fail out of med school, and admins know this. You shouldnt be jealous of someone else's success, you should use that as motivation to work towards your own.

 

[tantacles]

You guys, I'm very excited that this thread is here. I've never seen another thread like this ever in pre-allo.

 

[Medicinewoman85]

Its always easier to blame someone else for your failure to secure a seat. You can't make everyone happy.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Its always easier to blame someone else for your failure to secure a seat. You can't make everyone happy.

Is that what is happening here?

 

[JRmed]

Well hows about if you think any of it is unfair then just go on strike against the system and dont apply!!
that would make more room for the rest of us that aren't concerned with all the extra jazz and just focus on presenting the best application we can

One thing I will add is that, socioeconomic status is taken into consideration with the Disadvantage section of the application which has no basis on race what so ever and also something that no one has mentioned so far.. so if you come from a poor under-served region or had financial issues growing up you have an opportunity to speak of it there.. so I'm sure the adcoms when they come around to making a decision on a specific applicant, they will take everything into consideration to help prevent some preferred treatment to the "rich black guy" or to maybe give a second look at a "white guy from the ghetto".. so why not focus more own our own applications and things we can control or change.. and allow what I assume to be a well qualified group of adcoms to make their decisions based off all the intangibles specific to each case that we don't have instead of making generalizations.. this system isnt new and I'm sure more qualified individuals then a few different pre-meds have put in some thought into the subject of URM and the application process.. but thats just my opinion

 

[gettheleadout]

And finally, debunking the myth that people "connect" with doctors of the same race:

"Median duration of mental health discussion was significantly shorter in interactions with non-white patients than with white patients, particularly when the patient and physician were black."

Drats, the data is from 2009, nevermind this study is totally worthless.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0701/p91.html

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument. A study of a limited patient population constrained to mental health discussions and you're attempting to assert that the duration of the patient-physician conversation demonstrates a "connection" between the two individuals? I can just as easily assert that a shorter duration signifies better communication between the two because information on the implication of conversation length isn't given.

Although actually, it's probably just the physicians' faults independent of race!

A qualitative analysis of these conversations revealed that physicians often did not address mental health cues or concerns adequately.

 

[Doctor246853]

I heard your race matters when applying to medical school. So far i hear it's..

Easiest>African American>Native American>Hispanic>Asian/Indian>White>Hardest


Does anyone not see how this is wrong to do?...You're basically giving one race a higher chance then another race..

I understand if they take your financial status or area you're growing up in as a factor.

 

[wolfie77]

All the ignorant people here need to shut up.
The point is this: It's clear that America's white majority is oppressed and the URM system is just a manifestation of this. It's basically like South African apartheid in the US right now: the majority is being ruled and absolutely subjugated by the minorities.

 

[wolfie77]

Oh and btw, the lamestream media is covering up the organized mass slaughter of pure white babies.

 

[Arbor Vitae]

 

[sotto voce]

Oh and btw, the lamestream media is covering up the organized mass slaughter of pure white babies.

Indeed, the abortion rate among African-Americans is higher than that for other races. Is this another one of "whitey's" evil racist conspiracies, or is this a reflection of African-American culture? Which is more plausible?

 

[wolfie77]

Indeed, the abortion rate among African-Americans is higher than that for other races. Is this another one of "whitey's" evil racist conspiracies, or is this a reflection of African-American culture? Which is more plausible?

Are you hinting that black people don't care about their children and therefore kill them en masse in utero? Cuz if you are, it's better to just say it instead of beating around the racist bush.

But to get your question, "white culture" is the one that seems to have exhibited the most striking tendencies toward genocide, historically speaking. Ultimately, Idk, I wouldn't put it past "whitey"...

 

[Ashley1989]

Indeed, the abortion rate among African-Americans is higher than that for other races. Is this another one of "whitey's" evil racist conspiracies, or is this a reflection of African-American culture? Which is more plausible?

You are over simplifying a very complicated issue and personally I think it's starting to become borderline offensive.

 

[sotto voce]

You are over simplifying a very complicated issue and personally I think it's starting to become borderline offensive.

Ah, the classic SDN response to a true argument that happens to be inconvenient: "It's a complicated issue." "You're oversimplifying the issue." "You're being reductionist."

This country needs more liberty and more personal accountability, and less nanny state.

***I acknowledge that sex education in some areas can be quite bad. I believe effective, modern sex ed is a good thing, and studies show that in states with bad sex ed, teen pregnancy rates are higher. However, ultimately the onus of providing sex ed lies with the family, not with the state.

 

[sotto voce]

Are you hinting that black people don't care about their children and therefore kill them en masse in utero? Cuz if you are, it's better to just say it instead of beating around the racist bush.

But to get your question, "white culture" is the one that seems to have exhibited the most striking tendencies toward genocide, historically speaking. Ultimately, Idk, I wouldn't put it past "whitey"...

Oh and btw, the lamestream media is covering up the organized mass slaughter of pure white babies.

You raised the issue and now you're angry about the response? If you have sex, and if you get pregnant, and if you obtain an abortion...it's on you. Not the state.

 

[AestheticGod]

Man, what the hell kind of thread did i create O.O
My question was answered literally in the first 3 posts, and i can't even delete this thread lol.

 

[Ashley1989]

Ah, the classic SDN response to a true argument that happens to be inconvenient: "It's a complicated issue." "You're oversimplifying the issue." "You're being reductionist."

This country needs more liberty and more personal accountability, and less nanny state.

***I acknowledge that sex education in some areas can be quite bad. I believe effective, modern sex ed is a good thing, and studies show that in states with bad sex ed, teen pregnancy rates are higher. However, ultimately the onus of providing sex ed lies with the family, not with the state.

It's not a fallback argument I'm being serious. You keep making these huge sweeping generalizations that try and cram thousands of problems into "it's just their culture to have more abortions"

Go take some sociology or minority relations classes or something.

Edit: Let me finally add one more problem that makes this discussion pointless: you're jumping from point to point with no clear connections between the arguments, it's like you're flinging out whatever pops into your head next regardless of if it makes sense or not. I had a response for your claim about African Americans having abortions, and now you're starting to talk about liberty and nanny states? What exactly are you arguing here? What is the point in it? You're jumping around like a frickin mexican jumping bean from topic to topic.

just..... goodnight.

 

[sotto voce]

Man, what the hell kind of thread did i create O.O
My question was answered literally in the first 3 posts, and i can't even delete this thread lol.

We're having an honest discussion about personal responsibility and the role of the state. I'm in favor of liberty and personal responsiblity and accountability. Others have hinted that they would like the state to control every aspect of their life, so as to assure they don't have to make decisions for themselves. This is precisely why we're falling behind the rest of the world in math and science.

 

[Ashley1989]

We're having an honest discussion about personal responsibility and the role of the state. I'm in favor of liberty and personal responsiblity and accountability. Others have hinted that they would like the state to control every aspect of their life, so as to assure they don't have to make decisions for themselves. This is precisely why we're falling behind the rest of the world in math and science.

If this truly was an honest discussion, you would not be presenting each side of the argument with such shameless inaccuracy and in your favor. You're qualifying your argument with something that most people will naturally agree with, and then state that others have "hinted" (because of course you know there is no proof that this has been said because it couldn't be farther from the truth) that those who oppose you are slobbering idiots who want to live in an oppressive, government controlled country where they don't have to have the burden of freedom. Of course, you are smarter then your supposed fantasy sheep that need the state to control every aspect of their life.

You are honestly beyond discussion. It's pointless.

Goodnight.

 

[wolfie77]

You raised the issue and now you're angry about the response? If you have sex, and if you get pregnant, and if you obtain an abortion...it's on you. Not the state.

I thought it was abundantly clear that I was being sarcastic and parodying what I perceive as the ludicrous assertion that white people are in anyway disadvantaged in med school admissions (or society in general). And, for the record, abortion was the farthest thing from my mind when I said that thing about the babies. I was talking more about actual rounding up of infants.

But anywho, don't try to dodge the issue. Were you hinting that black Americans don't care about their kids and this is why, according to you, they abort them?

 

[sotto voce]

I thought it was abundantly clear that I was being sarcastic and parodying what I perceive as the ludicrous assertion that white people are in anyway disadvantaged in med school admissions (or society in general). And, for the record, abortion was the farthest thing from my mind when I said that thing about the babies. I was talking more about actual rounding up of infants.

But anywho, don't try to dodge the issue. Were you hinting that black Americans don't care about their kids and this is why, according to you, they abort them?

I merely stated the fact the abortion rate among African-Americans is higher than the abortion rate for other races, including for European-Americans like me.

In New York City, for example, the ~60% of pregancies among African-Americans end in an abortion. European-Americans and Asian-Americans are at ~21%. These numbers show that a bit more responsibilty would be good for everyone, not just African-Americans.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7883827