- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Yes I know, I already quoted that exact bit earlier on...
Lying About Race
- Thread starter SkipJunior
- Start date
B
Bookworm36
Oh my bad....but efle if you have to be culturally identified as a minority group [to work as a physician to provide better access for those groups which one identifies] but you don't have the right skin color then why does medical school want your Race not your Culture? Now, I'm totally confused.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 710
*nods* URM groups each have their own handling.
Very interesting read! 🙂
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
They ask for self-identified race because people who identify as underserved minorities are the most likely to settle down and practice in underserved communities. There's also a great deal of data that minorities prefer to go to and are happier with same-race doctors, which I think in theory makes it important to also consider whether someone is likely to be judged as same-race to the minority group they identify with. It's all a bunch of hypotheticals though, I thought it was interesting to question but these discussions always devolve into stuff like "you're discounting the experiences of light skinned minority" or "as Race X/Culture Y I personally..." etc.
B
Bookworm36
I divert to two questions:
1. Understanding lighter skinned Hispanic versus white is a cultural identity, how would admissions view a white African American or a black White person? Say I am white and grew up in South Africa and my family moved to America, then I would be a white African American. Would I not be? how would admission committee see this? In Africa the racial issue comes and goes.
2. What if hypothetically the said minority does not choose to serve their identified group but chooses to specialize instead? Is said minority required to then serve their identified group? And, if he or she is Not required to serve his or her group, then how is it even possible that said minority gets into medical school with lower stats than said non-minority? What is the real point of claiming race/ethnicity?
1. Understanding lighter skinned Hispanic versus white is a cultural identity, how would admissions view a white African American or a black White person? Say I am white and grew up in South Africa and my family moved to America, then I would be a white African American. Would I not be? how would admission committee see this? In Africa the racial issue comes and goes.
2. What if hypothetically the said minority does not choose to serve their identified group but chooses to specialize instead? Is said minority required to then serve their identified group? And, if he or she is Not required to serve his or her group, then how is it even possible that said minority gets into medical school with lower stats than said non-minority? What is the real point of claiming race/ethnicity?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 4
It seems the US Census Bureau thinks races and ethnicity are based on origins. Present affiliations don't seem to matter. This whole self-identifying thing is not very well defined.
"The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:
White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands."
"The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:
White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.
American Indian or Alaska Native – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 710
With regards to the first question, my understanding of white Africans in your case (white people growing up in South Africa, if I understand your post) is that they aren't exactly very different from Europeans or Americans, whether culturally or ethnically, so despite being an 'African-American' by definition, it isn't the African-American that will make "African-American" (read: black) patients more comfortable. What is a "black White person"? Eminem?
With regards to the second question, you can specialize and still serve a minority population. Serving a population does not mean you have to exclusively go into family medicine. Perhaps I have had my experiences in a very unique environment (Miami), but having people across all specialties that can best work with minority populations would be best. In many departments I shadowed, the MDs used to be non-Spanish speakers and the patients lamented (or complained) about having to have someone like me work as an interpreter between doctor and patient. You're not required to serve, but (apparently, I don't have the data with me) minorities are statistically more likely to go back and practice in areas where their minority's needs are not being adequately served.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 876
A black albino?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 369
A white person growing up in South Africa does not become an African American upon moving to America. They are white. European. That's their ethnicity. Their nationality may be South African, but they don't suddenly become black. They would not be considered URM. @LizzyM always says to deduce your ethnic makeup, imagine where your family would have lived in 1490 or something like that.
But anyway, as to your second question, no - a URM is not required to serve his or her group. That makes no sense whatsoever. As a doctor, URM or not, you're going to serve all populations depending on where you practice.
You guys are getting nitpicky now. This is really not that difficult.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 710
At my college, we actually had one ... despite being albino (white skin, blond hair), his features were unquestionably that of a sub-saharan African.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 31
I know this is only tangentially related, but I really would be interested to hear an adcom's explanation as to why applicants from African immigrant and Caribbean backgrounds are given the URM boost (possibly to the detriment of African Americans) despite being, in fact, overrepresented in medicine. It's not like all black people belong to the same culture, after all.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,473
- Reaction score
- 53,325
What evidence do you have that they are given a boost? AFAIK, there is no evidence (from AMCAS) so all we have are assumptions you are making.
B
Bookworm36
Yeah, it Is Simple: I see no point in identifying. It isn't that difficult, until you start to deduce that those who have the opportunity to claim race get into med school with lower stats? It all plays into the original hypothetical of 'why not just lie about race if my stats dont match the competitive average for my race'? Where have you been?
Its not right to judge one race as superior to another - that is called racism. And, it is not right to let in one type of racial minority into med school with lower stats - that is called discrimination. I refuse to play into the racial discrimination game. Its better to just claim no self-identify or two or more races. That is where I stand about lying about race. I won't lie, I just won't identify. like I posted earlier, everyone gets marginalized and discriminated against at least once in their life and/or careers. I disagree there should be a section for URM because not everyone fits into or out of the box for URM.
When I apply for jobs, I do the same thing. Its just noone's right to make a judgment on me based on my race. Besides, alot of times people don't get it right anyway. What is the point?
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bookworm36
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 1,553
We did a statistical analysis in a previous URM debate thread and actually found that the non-identifying race group actually was the most competitive: lowest acceptance rates, highest stats, etc. Maybe just identifying yourself as what you are would be more beneficial.
B
Bookworm36
I'd like to read that thread. The problem is I personally have is that I don't actually identify with any group. I have no family so I don't have any roots with which to identify. That being said, I wouldn't want to say I'm Hispanic without speaking perfectly fluent Spanish, and I wouldn't want to say I'm African American without looking the part. I don't want to say I'm white because I'm sure as heck don't get any 'white privilege'. I don't categorize myself as another group such as Pacific Islander or Native American. I cannot register as a tribal member of a Native American tribe. From a personal viewpoint, I don't neatly fit into any category. If its more competitive, so be it. I just don't feel comfortable identifying with any group. Since you say it is more competitive, this is more motivation for me to just say 'two or more races' then makeup whatever I think people see me as.
Why would that make me less of a qualified applicant? I feel like I should be discussing the difference between Grover and Snuffaluffagus. It just doesn't make any sense to me, and quite frankly, it hurts to know I'm being forced to put myself into a box. Does this make sense?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Maybe "non identify" is competitive because they'll assume you're ORM and trying not to reveal it, plus they then can't easily track how many of each race is being invited/accepted if they bring a bunch of non-identify into the equation
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 369
Your problem is highly personalized though.
If you don't want to identify - don't identify! If you don't fit neatly into the URM box, then you don't fit neatly into the URM box and medical schools will act accordingly. Just because you find issue with how you identify, and dislike being labeled or put in a box, doesn't mean everyone else does. Those of mixed race backgrounds can check multiple boxes if they need to. So this seems like a personal problem.
Medical schools are not deeming URM superior to ORMs. They're saying "Oh hey look there's very little of you in the medical field and that's not a good thing so we're going to try and diversify the experiences and people in this class as best we can". If you find that to be racially discriminatory against you, take it up with the Supreme Court who have already decided that what admissions boards do is okay.
Med school acceptance is a crapshoot for anyone of any race. Have the best application possible, as high stats as you can possibly manage and apply wisely, that's all you can really do.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Counterpoint - the California constitution was amended to make it not ok because the voters found it racially discriminatory. It's not a decided issue.
The "oh well, nothing you can do, just try your best" response is a craptastic surrender and a great way to never challenge or change anything. I'm not saying that in this case something needs to be challenged or changed - it just frustrates the hell out of me to see people respond this way instead of actually taking a stance on any difficult issue. If you think it's right defend it, if wrong critique it, don't just throw your hands up and ignore it. /rant
B
Bookworm36
Yeah. My background isn't a problem, its that I don't believe I'm alone. A 'minority' is someone who is not the 'majority' race, which won't be whites anyway soon [http://qz.com/251380/starting-this-...outnumber-white-americans-in-public-schools/]. What you are saying is that there should be an equal number of each race in medicine Or are you saying a percentage close to the actual population percentage? Also, those 'minorities' who are held to different standards than the 'majority' will not be required to serve his or her self-identified community, but have a free choice to serve any group and specialize. If this is what you are saying, what one is left with is a population of medical providers, who racially reflects the actual population, but still not enough providers to serve the group who identify with the URM.
So, what you are actually saying is medical schools need to let in more URMs than non-URMs to make up for the fact that some of those URMs will not be serving their self-identified communities.
So, what you are saying is that since URMs are let into medical school with less stats and are held to a different standard than non-URMs, and those that end up specializing and not serving in their self-identified communities, and Now there is an equal number of each type of URM and non-URM in medicine, then it is okay to let someone into medicine based on their race and lower stats. Now, I'm back to the biology of intelligence (because sincerely what other reason would it be? but again, I believe this is idiotic to assume intelligence is related to race for so many reasons, all based in science) and have diverged to asking myself if going to a physician who has gotten into medical school with lower stats will provide the same care, have the ability to apply the knowledge learned, and will be quick to discover and apply new techniques in a changing technological world. Or, would it be safer to go to a physician who has been held to the highest standards they can possibly be held at? What exactly are you trying to say? Ignore this thread and move on with you life? This is an issue I deal with alot, obviously. I"m not going to validate why I posted my personal experience; I want to enrich my life by better understanding the racial issues not only in this country, but also in medicine, especially if I plan to serve in areas with mixed racial populations. When I first saw the stats for mcat and gpa and race I was dumbfounded. I thought everyone was held to the same standards but its not true.
I apologize for the length.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Well, it could be environment instead? Re the bold: This sounds like a great chance to play devil's advocate...science-based reasons like what?
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 21
The moral of this thread might be that if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all!
haha. minorities, I feel you - non-minority.
haha. minorities, I feel you - non-minority.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 166
Work on being a bit more succinct 😉
AdComs aren't in the habit of admitting people who are at a high risk of failing out. Occasionally, the AdCom will fail. Practicing physicians, however, did not fail. They met or exceeded the standards set by the medical school, national licensing bodies, and the residency program. Everyone is, in fact, held to the same standards.
B
Bookworm36
What do you mean by 'environment'? Cultural environment, actual environment, toxic environment, what?
OK I will try to play...
Refuting it based on science while referencing someone's 'scientifically based' thesis: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ng-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/
Africa different genes than rest of the world: http://www.newscientist.com/article...n-to-africa-revealed-in-dna.html#.VRnrOeGrF6I
Genes advantageous to survival http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/
why not intelligence? (me playing Devil's advocate) Also: http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...604/title/An-Ancient-Evolutionary-Advantage-/
But really, more like culture: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sparities-among-races-ethnicities-and-nations
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Any of those environments; they would all be not biological reasons.
First link: Very, very weak refutation. Studies into intelligence varying with race control for SES etc - that is, they can show poor Hispanic vs poor white when looking for differences, not just Hispanic vs white with lurking SES factors as this writer seems to suggest. As for the validity of IQ as a metric, lets say it's imperfect but it's actually what's being proposed: that IQ differences are heritable and vary racially, not intelligence differences. That simplifies things.
Second link: You'll have to clarify what you mean with this one.
Third link: I don't think anyone has ever questioned modern evolutionary theory when discussing race-variant IQ
Fourth link: As mentioned, there's no evidence for causality between increased population literacy and IQ, and again you can control for this using the perceptual-type IQ tests that it mentioned don't vary with literacy.
Last I read on this, the major refutations were: 1) that race is a construct that can't be defined so this measurement can't be performed; but test-takers self-identified a race, they weren't assigned one, so now you just say there is variation with IQ and self-identified race. 2) that poor minority performance was due to fulfilling stereotypes that they are bad on tests; this does nothing to explain minorities that outperform whites so now you'd still have an argument that eg self-identified asians possess better test taking skills than whites. A study showing that positive stereotype salience could significantly improve performance may explain it for asian. 3) that all discrepancies come from the race histories in the US; but the results have been duplicated worldwide. I believe I've also heard an argument that the IQ test is inherently biased towards majority culture in the way questions are written (again failing to explain how some minorities outperform whites) but you can also see discrepancies in exams like mathematical tests, and I don't see how an algebraic expression could be biased towards any race or another.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 369
Thanks for that counterpoint, nice to know.
But my feelings on this issue aren't an "oh well, nothing you can do, just try your best". Its a "This is how medical school applications work, and while the system isn't perfect, I have no great problem with it."
No don't apologize.
Anyway, I don't know how you extrapolated all that from the few sentences I wrote in this thread, but alright.
Secondly, I'm not a fan of these URM threads because the basis for these arguments is usually Table 25 of great reknown and I'm probably the only person on SDN of the opinion that the data for latino and black medical applicants is highly skewed due to the three large HBCU medical schools as well as the Puerto Rican medical schools that are mission-based and allow in a higher number of URM with lowered stats. Because I'd be highly suspicious if Top 20 medical schools are letting in anyone with a GPA below a 3.3 and a 28 MCAT just because they're under-represented.
Thirdly, URM students are not automatons programmed to leave medical school and beeline straight for other minority communities to practice in. They're people like you or me who maybe want to go and practice in the region they grew up in which may or may not be underserved or who may or may not want to practice on the outskirts of a large city of suburban white folks. You coldly calculating what URMs are expected to do or not to do after receiving their medical education is, honestly, offensive. Not to mention your implication that they won't be as good or as knowledgeable as an ORM doctor, as if admissions committees don't select students who they think can handle the rigor of their programs, as if GPA and MCAT are the only indications of how well a physician provides care, or - how did you put it? - how well a physician "will be quick to discover and apply new techniques in a changing technological world." 🙄
It doesn't really sound like you really want to"enrich your life" by understanding racial issues in this country. Because if you did you would have been listening to the thousands of URM med students, pre-med students and applicants who have been posting in threads like these for ages who have been explaining their take on the issue. Not even to mention the adcoms on here who have posted in threads like these multiple times explaining their reasoning over and over again, with complete honesty.
But you know, whatever floats your boat, sunshine.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 1,553
Bro, trust me, we've been saying this exact fact for years. It is a generally accepted fact that the HBCUs and PR med schools skew the stats for URMs. I can tell you that the URM students in my class whom I've discussed test scores with are mostly 95th percentile MCAT and up. Unfortunately, we can't provide actual statistics for this due to not having the raw data from the AAMC.
Average MCAT at UPR: 25 (107 students per class)
at San Juan Bautista: 21 (64 students)
at Ponce School of Medicine: 23 (69 students)
at Universidad Central del Caribe: 23 (65 students)
When only 1,255 Latino/Hispanic medical students are getting in each year and 305 are at PR schools (24%) which average well below a 25 MCAT, it is obvious that the overall numbers will be skewed.
BTW I'm not knocking PR medical schools - they have great students; however, many of them speak much better Spanish than English and the MCAT is only offered in the latter. This obviously has a major effect on MCAT scores for these schools, which in turn affects the overall Latino numbers.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,572
- Reaction score
- 2,242
This should'nt even be a legitimate question let alone garnering so much attention.
B
Bookworm36
Hi efle, do you have a reference for this study done with math? You make a good point that math simply would not be biased. I concur mostly with your other statements, and admit I wanted to respond. The IQ with the evolution was just me questioning, or playing Devils advocate. So far, there has been no data I have found, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, examining the differences in genes, races, and evolutionary gene admixing with human differences in IQ. I would be interested in that as well.
Maybe not a 28mcat and 3.3 Gpa, but a 32 Mcat and a 3.6 or 3.7 Gpa as opposed to a 35+mcat and 3.8 or 3.9 Gpa and same ECs, yes. Just concerning super top schools, lower stats. If I'm white, I could get into state school, and maybe a few more competitive private schools, with a 32Mcat and 3.6 or 3.7 Gpa, but not a Top school like Yale, Stanford, or JH. A URM could though. I'm not disputing that would make any applicant competitive, but you said top schools, so I gave you real life scenario of differences in stats.
B
Bookworm36
I just want to say, that I think I have come to terms with this issue. This forum was very insightful and actually helpful.
B
Bookworm36
OMG. You guys would like this article. Thought I would share: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-medical-school-by-posing-as-black/?tid=sm_fb
if the link doesn't work its "Mindy Kaling's brother claims he got into medical school by posing as black" I believe this article sums it up...and he is planning to write a book. I got a kick out of it. I hope you do to. Lol
if the link doesn't work its "Mindy Kaling's brother claims he got into medical school by posing as black" I believe this article sums it up...and he is planning to write a book. I got a kick out of it. I hope you do to. Lol
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14
Yeah... go ahead. When they get caught one person less out the applicant pool
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,174
- Reaction score
- 1,001
If you apply without specifying race, what do adcoms do with that? Assume you don't have an obvious name like Ling Ling or Winston Chesterfield.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,541
- Reaction score
- 5,934
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,473
- Reaction score
- 53,325
They assume that you are a member of the human race. The review of the application proceeds from there.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,166
- Reaction score
- 1,217
Would a 50/50 Black-Asian applicant be considered neither URM nor ORM?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
You can identify as either, I believe
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,166
- Reaction score
- 1,217
Then at what point does the whole system just reduce to absurdity and arbitrary labels?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
The system wants to respond to patient populations. You can't go around telling people they are or are not black/Asian, so you have to go by "what do you self-identify as" and for someone that is a mix, either is fair game. Seems reasonable to me.
But why one or the other? Why not both?
Precisely. Categorizing people by race is absurd.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2014
- Messages
- 14,146
- Reaction score
- 22,788
Maybe they phrase it as "which of the following do you most closely identify as" to make you choose? Or maybe you can put both!
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2010
- Messages
- 74,387
- Reaction score
- 119,363
You're the one who checks the boxes on the app form. The US Census decides what boxes are on the form, but you're the one who determines what identity you are.
BTW, an African American/Asian person would be wise to show evidence to commitment to minority populations. Just saying.
BTW, an African American/Asian person would be wise to show evidence to commitment to minority populations. Just saying.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 108
And yet, a white Argentinian,white Uruguyan, or white Mexican are still considered Latinos upon moving to the USA.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,473
- Reaction score
- 53,325
Hispanic, not Latino, is the term used by the US census. A Hispanic may be of any race. Not all Hispanics are considered URM; that decision is made on a case by case basis by each medical school depending on what groups are under-represented in medicine in their catchment area (which may be a geographic region or may be the entire country).
