My Rant Against Med School Admissions

[GoSpursGo]

OK, let's all please take a deep breath here.

Logical, reasonable, and respectful/civil discussion of sensitive issues=

Personal insults/ad hominem attacks=

Off-topic posts=

Racist posts/"all members of Race X are _______"=thumbdown

The moderator staff has been watching this thread closely and has, for the most part, been fairly impressed with the community's ability to police itself and keep this thread civil. We thoroughly encourage users to discuss sensitive issues. However, if the thread continues to degenerate into personal attacks and racist remarks, it will be closed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dokein]

Let's all stay on topic and not get personal. This is a highly charged subject and emotional for many people.

I think it is fair to say that African-Americans have been discriminated against very heavily in the last 200 years.

I think it is fair to say that this results in some cost to current African-Americans.

There are two points that are being argued:

1. Have African-Americans received MORE discrimination than other races that are non-URM? Also important: have Hispanics received MORE?

2. Do these costs account for the entirety of their deficit in terms of education, or is there other stuff like the specific trajectory of culture and societal style in the last 1000 years? Not that any one culture is more or less "good"--but that Western college-level education is more derived from Western culture.

I think these two points are interesting, but also irrelevant.

In my opinion, standards should be held equal for everybody at the professional school level.

1. I am not opposed to additional funding or teaching to combat racism and counter historical grievances at the primary school level, in order to facilitate the development of an unoppressed mentality. However, at the time of matriculation in undergraduate college we are all adults (18+), and therefore should be fully accountable for our own actions for these four years, regardless of personal or ethnic history.

Yes there is still some residual effect of families, etc. This is true for everything, including crime. However, there is a point in which personal responsibility must completely override circumstantial responsibility, and to me that occurs at 18.

2. Yes, there is still inequality. Practically, changing admissions standards by group might help. But from a purely moral perspective, the way to address this is NOT by creating inequality in admissions standards because that does more harm than good.

Harm a: Creates a harmful dynamic between classmates and URM people who got in fairly. If medical school admissions were colorblind, this dynamic would be greatly reduced.

Harm b: Because medicine is still subject to the laws of economics, creating an unfair playingground, even if it's only slightly unfair (0.1%), is unattractive to top candidates against whom the odds are stacked (even if it's only stacked 1 cm high).

Harm c: We risk valuing the cultural experiences of one group over another, which means that when the two groups become equal in the future, there will still be residual friction.

Racism still exists. I have experienced it, although almost certainly not to the extent of anverage black kid. But it has also decreased significantly in the past 50 years--I realize there is overt and advert racism, but the trend for both is going downwards.

I believe that instituting colored policies in regards to admissions will perpetuate racism rather than allowing the current trend to continue.

Furthermore, world history is not something that is easily corrected for. Each group has the right to some reparation by some other group at some point in history. Yes maybe you can argue that Africans have had it worst, I am certainly not knowledgeable to calculate it. But who is knowledgeable enough? We have only gone through the lens of our own culture and see history from our own perspective.

Nobody has themselves lived centuries of slavery and oppression--you might face the aftereffects and residual, but how much is difficult to calculate.

 

[FlowRate]

OK, let's all please take a deep breath here.

Logical, reasonable, and respectful/civil discussion of sensitive issues=

Personal insults/ad hominem attacks=

Off-topic posts=

Racist posts/"all members of Race X are _______"=thumbdown

The moderator staff has been watching this thread closely and has, for the most part, been fairly impressed with the community's ability to police itself and keep this thread civil. We thoroughly encourage users to discuss sensitive issues. However, if the thread continues to degenerate into personal attacks and racist remarks, it will be closed.

I'm not sure if we've brought this up again in this particular race thread, but I'm honestly of the opinion that making a racial differentiation in any setting helps propagate racism. I am totally for special considerations based on concrete socioeconomic disadvantages. Unfortunately, even that consideration is often hard to do fairly--I have friends whose parents just bought them new cars and everything who are also on way-more-than full-tuition need-based scholarships.

 

[thamsenman]

In a country based on rugged individualism, I think every individual ought to have a chance against every other individual, particularly in academic institutions.

We are all equal. Many people go through hardship, but only some are told to "Live with It" while others are told, "Wow. You deserve special consideration for you accomplishments in light of your harship."

Should hardship be considered? Obviously, yes. But it should be quantified and tied to socioeconomic status and not race.

 

[bamtuba]

That Popeye's Chicken thing occurred in my hometown. What a stupid news story. WTG Rochester!

Agreed. But I'd rather hear about that then the weather here.

But there are other Popeye's (one in Penfield, for example) that would have shown a much more diverse population. That particular store is a)in an area where during that time of day there tends to be more people of one background over others and b) closer to the tv news studio. I wouldn't read anything into that story, other than people like chicken.

I love Popeye's, but I'm Southern. Has nothing to do with being of a particular race, etc. They just have good chicken.

Mmmmm...

I'm getting hungry now.

 

[bamtuba]

FWIW, I think just about every people group tends to favor it's own over others just because familiarity tends to be more comforting.

We, as a society, have responsibilities to help others who need help. It has nothing to do with renumeration or righting past wrongs. You can never really do this anyhow as favortism for any reason just does more harm than good. If people would really just treat others as they would like to be treated (within reason) and everyone did their part to deal with the internal tendency to play favorites, whether based on ideaology, religious background, or cultural heritage, we would live in a much better place.

But like Gandhi said, "be the change you want to see."

As I said many pages ago in this thread, I think it is wise for schools to choose students based on aptitude and other non-tangibles combined with some level of achievement rather than either achievement or diversity alone.

Considerations of diversity should play a part, in my opinion, when there is a SPECIFIC need that a candidate will fulfill, such as educating physicians of a type that will be willing to fill a real societal need where one truly exists (ie. willing to work in underserved areas such as rural, city, etc.).

 

[rctriplefresh5]

It does not matter if you make fun of white people too. You are a bigot by definition: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. You know like when you said, "blacks are not smart" People like you propagate stereotypes. You think it is funny and a joke. But in actuality, its very childish. Please grow up before going to medical school. I am sorry for merely combating your posts. But what you said is ridiculous and not contributing. The rests of my posts actually add evidence to promote a informative discussion. "Stereotypes are true" - huh? just leave

i said theyre true most of the time not all of the time. and that is a true statement. and i said africans were totally different from african americans, and i also said i only didnt like the gangster blacks, i have no problem with civil black people. io hate gangster whites just as much as gangster blacks. if your a civil law abiding white or black person youre cool with me also.

and i wasnt making fun of anybody.

 

[rctriplefresh5]

I have to disagree.

Stereotypes are used by people who want an answer for everything. It gives them the perception that they understand the world better even though they really don't. Instead of keeping an open mind and learning something new, they simply say, "Well, I will assume this since that is the stereotype I know." Normally, people who stereotype don't like learning new things, and hold on to what they believe because it makes them "safe".

I gave stereotyping people a try once a few years ago when I started college, but found it didn't work too well. I stopped doing it after a few days, because it kept making me assume wrong things. When you stereotype people, you have to get use to the feeling of being wrong the majority of the time. Why? Because people are different. I should add that I hate being wrong.

I find it strange that a college student would still believe in stereotypes. In college you meet so many different people, so I don't know how anyone could find a one size fits all box for certain groups.

Finally, there have been studies done by various university psychology departments that show while stereotypes are true sometimes, they are normally wrong.

well i said it was true in a majority of cases not 100 percent of the time. i dont really think you can do an accurate study either, as the subjects will probably just lie, because noone likes sterotypes. sure there are black people who hate chicken, asians who are great drivers and poor math students...but a lot of times sterotypes are true.

 

[DntStopBelievin]

wow...all i can say is that this rant of yours was extremely hurtful not only to me (Asian) but to my friends who are URM. All of us have worked so hard to reach this point and you really should get off your high horse because all of us deserve a spot but there are only so many. And the numbers are not the only things that "qualify" us for med school...there are obviously other factors involved, factors that you may be lacking, factors that we all are probably not aware of (and im not talking about URM status). Just accept the fact that this process is RANDOM!! The admissions committee is a group of HUMAN BEINGS choosing students for a spot in med school, who knows what guides their choice.

 

[youngMeddy]

Let's all stay on topic and not get personal. This is a highly charged subject and emotional for many people.

Harm a: Creates a harmful dynamic between classmates and URM people who got in fairly. If medical school admissions were colorblind, this dynamic would be greatly reduced.

- Not true. Diverse students has actually be shown to improve the educational environment.

Harm c: We risk valuing the cultural experiences of one group over another, which means that when the two groups become equal in the future, there will still be residual friction.
- I would disagree. I think interacting with peers of different races/experiences/etc as equals breeds better understanding and thus less friction. However, to think that there will be a day w/o racism is far-fetched. Also remember URM is an effort to address a diversifying pop. I don't think that is exactly valuing on culture over another.

Racism still exists. I have experienced it, although almost certainly not to the extent of anverage black kid. But it has also decreased significantly in the past 50 years--I realize there is overt and advert racism, but the trend for both is going downwards.

I believe that instituting colored policies in regards to admissions will perpetuate racism rather than allowing the current trend to continue.

Furthermore, world history is not something that is easily corrected for. Each group has the right to some reparation by some other group at some point in history. Yes maybe you can argue that Africans have had it worst, I am certainly not knowledgeable to calculate it. But who is knowledgeable enough? We have only gone through the lens of our own culture and see history from our own perspective.

2. Yes, there is still inequality. Practically, changing admissions standards by group might help. But from a purely moral perspective, the way to address this is NOT by creating inequality in admissions standards because that does more harm than good.

Nobody has themselves lived centuries of slavery and oppression--you might face the aftereffects and residual, but how much is difficult to calculate.

- I agree that is it hard if not impossible to know how exactly to address inequality. But, that does not mean we should just do nothing.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

BOLDED = my response

 

[dokein]

BOLDED = my response

There is a difference between diversity and giving URMs preference on account of their race, furthermore diversity is not only measured by race.

In either case, I think that we've both fleshed out our positions pretty thoroughly (at least I have), and we aren't bound to agree anytime soon.

Thanks for the discussion, I learned a lot and enjoyed it very much.

 

[DntStopBelievin]

Correct me if im wrong but the number of URMs who apply are much lower than Asian and white applicants. In that case, the "qualified" person who supposedly took your spot in those schools where you got rejected/waitlisted might have not been a URM after all. Just wondering but does that make you feel any better?

Maybe we should just do away with all the AAMC stats (especially how it divides us by race) and MDapplicants if it's just going to make us all competative to the point that it makes us forget why we wanted to go into medicine in the first place!!!

 

[tonguetalker]

well i said it was true in a majority of cases not 100 percent of the time. i dont really think you can do an accurate study either, as the subjects will probably just lie, because noone likes sterotypes. sure there are black people who hate chicken, asians who are great drivers and poor math students...but a lot of times sterotypes are true.

Excuse me but do you ACTUALLY know any black people aside from television??? You sir are extremely ignorant AND indeed racist. Until you have actually known some black people, you have NO room to talk. As for myself I grew up in the hood, the projects, the ghetto, whatever you want to call it. While it is rough, it is NOT full of gangster. People who live in the ghetto do not choose to live there. Because of the hand that the cards of life has dealt to them, that is usually their only option. If they mommas never told them the importance of getting an education, they arent going to go get one. They in turn dont tell their children to go get an education. It's a cycle. No one wants to be stupid. And another thing, those people who you are talking about are N!GGAZZZ and there is a BIG BIG difference between n!ggaz and black people. Very few black people are n!ggaz. The ONLY reason that I'm able to be successful in education is because my mother sent me to a private school full of white and asian kids for me to get a proper education and she did not allow the streets to raise me which is what happens to most black people without a lot of choices. I really think that there is something wrong with you and you really ought to step outside of your little bubble and move into reality.

 

[youngMeddy]

There is a difference between diversity and giving URMs preference on account of their race, furthermore diversity is not only measured by race.

In either case, I think that we've both fleshed out our positions pretty thoroughly (at least I have), and we aren't bound to agree anytime soon.

Thanks for the discussion, I learned a lot and enjoyed it very much.

Right back at you. I have enjoyed this.

 

[dokein]

Correct me if im wrong but the number of URMs who apply are much lower than Asian and white applicants. In that case, the "qualified" person who supposedly took your spot in those schools where you got rejected/waitlisted might have not been a URM after all. Just wondering but does that make you feel any better?

Maybe we should just do away with all the AAMC stats (especially how it divides us by race) and MDapplicants if it's just going to make us all competative to the point that it makes us forget why we wanted to go into medicine in the first place!!!

Hey,

I know you're new to the thread (it seems) and it's a lot to read, but I think the first question has already been addressed many times.

I don't think it's 'making us forget why we want to go into medicine', this thread is specifically to discuss AA so of course we focus on it.

 

[medactar]

Why did this turn into a "who had it worse" thread?

Arguing that the reason for AA is to improve the learning environment of the majority shows a bit of latent, inherent bias. Like minorities are there to serve the fancy of the majority.

This is why I argue that AA is about social justice and that's it. When we achieve social justice then AA can stop.

 

[7starmantis]

When we achieve social justice then AA can stop.

I've stayed away from this thread like the plague.
I was just curious (not that I even accept the premise of the quoted statement) what exactly is social justice and how will you tell when we have reached it?

 

[ThinkTooMuch]

i can see making the case for african americans as URM because the US gov is directly responsible for the under-presentation. but i dont see why hispanics also fall under URM. sure they are underrepresented but not because of anything the US gov did.

 

[thamsenman]

This is why I argue that AA is about social justice and that's it. When we achieve social justice then AA can stop.

Then why not fill medical school seats with people from poverty-striken slums in Rwanda or Somalia or India? Deny all American graduates and give those seats to the least among us. You know, the ones who weren't lucky enough to be American or in a society that rewarded them for their race.

Why do we say "Boo hoo" to those people?

It isn't their fault that they were born in circumstances they cannot get out of, and it isn't just that colonial Europe raided and pillaged African nations....but we put those people in another "mental container" when it comes to social justice.

Social justice is just a euphemism for guilt. And it is applied very selectively.

 

[mercy82]

i can see making the case for african americans as URM because the US gov is directly responsible for the under-presentation. but i dont see why hispanics also fall under URM. sure they are underrepresented but not because of anything the US gov did.

The definition and application of the term URM is actually quite str8 forward. URM means just that, under-represented minorities, which blankets groups that are under-represented in medicine when compared to their representation in the population as a whole. Such groups include hispanics, blacks and white females (not sure if numerical this is still the case). The goal is to somehow have an appropriate presentation of all groups in medicine. The benefits of this goal have been stated several times in this forum and is debatable

 

[ragstoMD]

In a country based on rugged individualism, I think every individual ought to have a chance against every other individual, particularly in academic institutions.

We are all equal. Many people go through hardship, but only some are told to "Live with It" while others are told, "Wow. You deserve special consideration for you accomplishments in light of your harship."

Should hardship be considered? Obviously, yes. But it should be quantified and tied to socioeconomic status and not race.

Just to put in my two cents because I thought the OP's post was interesting.

I am a american chinese medical student who scored a 29 and had a 3.1 gpa (below my school's average matriculant's 33 and 3.8 gpa. My school is the number 1 if not number 2 "ranked" school in Texas and top 20 in the nation )

I only mention this because I don't think the system is as flawed as the op thinks. I know my acceptance was based largely on overcoming my socioeconomic status and caring about my community that I was involved in.

 

[thamsenman]

Can you explain to me why there are so many black doctors working in suburban areas, with an eye toward getting hugely rich and treating only certain patients?

Why aren't they working in inner cities helping underrepresented communities?
Helping to address these inequalities?

 

[youngMeddy]

Then why not fill medical school seats with people from poverty-striken slums in Rwanda or Somalia or India? Deny all American graduates and give those seats to the least among us. You know, the ones who weren't lucky enough to be American or in a society that rewarded them for their race.

Why do we say "Boo hoo" to those people?

It isn't their fault that they were born in circumstances they cannot get out of, and it isn't just that colonial Europe raided and pillaged African nations....but we put those people in another "mental container" when it comes to social justice.

Social justice is just a euphemism for guilt. And it is applied very selectively.

This is an irrelevant argument. Those populations (Somalians, etc) are veyr small in the U.S. In addition, from an AA point of view these populations are not traditionally discriminated groups in the U.S.

 

[thamsenman]

This is an irrelevant argument. Those populations (Somalians, etc) are veyr small in the U.S. In addition, from an AA point of view these populations are not traditionally discriminated groups in the U.S.

So what? You have to be a member of the US to be someone adversely affected by western culture? So other people don't deserve this treatment because they aren't fortunate enough to live here?

I can't follow all this mental gymnastics. If I'm not traditionally discriminated, it doesn't matter? That's what's important? That I fall into some academic's groupthink?

 

[youngMeddy]

So what? You have to be a member of the US to be someone adversely affected by western culture? So other people don't deserve this treatment because they aren't fortunate enough to live here?

I can't follow all this mental gymnastics. If I'm not traditionally discriminated, it doesn't matter? That's what's important? That I fall into some academic's groupthink?

I'm just saying your argument is not actually addressing the URM issue. URM is a American medical school issue. Its purpose is to get more minority doctors to aid a diversifying U.S population. that's all. I don't want to be a dead horse.

 

[youngMeddy]

Can you explain to me why there are so many black doctors working in suburban areas, with an eye toward getting hugely rich and treating only certain patients?

Why aren't they working in inner cities helping underrepresented communities?
Helping to address these inequalities?

IDK how true this is. Many studies show that minority doctors are more likely to work in underserved areas compared to white doctors.

 

[thamsenman]

Can you explain to me why there are so many black doctors working in suburban areas, with an eye toward getting hugely rich and treating only certain patients?

Why aren't they working in inner cities helping underrepresented communities?
Helping to address these inequalities?

What about this? That is evidence these policies are having their intended affect?

 

[thamsenman]

IDK how true this is. Many studies show that minority doctors are more likely to work in underserved areas compared to white doctors.

Boy, you are really in LaLa land

I know many black physicians who tell me they intentionally gamed the system and told people what they wanted to hear, and will encourage their children to do the same.

 

[youngMeddy]

Boy, you are really in LaLa land

I know many black physicians who tell me they intentionally gamed the system and told people what they wanted to hear, and will encourage their children to do the same.

Alright. Maybe I live in "lala" land. But I tend to trust empirical studies more than personal anecdotes of premed students who aren't even in medical school yet. I don't want to bicker with you. It's childish and a waste of time.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Can you explain to me why there are so many black doctors working in suburban areas, with an eye toward getting hugely rich and treating only certain patients?

Why aren't they working in inner cities helping underrepresented communities?
Helping to address these inequalities?

Boy, you are really in LaLa land

I know many black physicians who tell me they intentionally gamed the system and told people what they wanted to hear, and will encourage their children to do the same.

lol obviously these MANY black physicians you know so well clearly trump whatever is out there, like

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/20/1305

"[FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions Black and Hispanic physicians have a unique and important role in caring for poor, black, and Hispanic patients in California. Dismantling affirmative-action programs, as is currently proposed, may threaten health care for both poor people and members of minority groups.".

 

[7starmantis]

lol obviously these MANY black physicians you know so well clearly trump whatever is out there, like

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/20/1305

"[FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions Black and Hispanic physicians have a unique and important role in caring for poor, black, and Hispanic patients in California. Dismantling affirmative-action programs, as is currently proposed, may threaten health care for both poor people and members of minority groups.".

Compelling as that may be, I'm not sure that I completely agree with the premise of the whole study. Not saying its wrong or your wrong, just haven't made my mind up yet how I feel about it. Anyone got any studies showing that minorities are more likely to visit doctors if the doctors are their own race? I agree that happens to some degree, but not sure I believe the premise that it really affects minority health care that much.

Just my own thoughts on it.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Compelling as that may be, I'm not sure that I completely agree with the premise of the whole study. Not saying its wrong or your wrong, just haven't made my mind up yet how I feel about it. Anyone got any studies showing that minorities are more likely to visit doctors if the doctors are their own race? I agree that happens to some degree, but not sure I believe the premise that it really affects minority health care that much.

Just my own thoughts on it.

i encourage you to google scholar search and bring us some knowledge.. interesting question. i ran into this:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/6/583
"[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Our data suggest that African American patients rate their visits with physicians as less participatory than whites. However, patients seeing physicians of their own race rate their physicians' decision-making styles as more participatory." .

 

[7starmantis]

i encourage you to google scholar search and bring us some knowledge.. interesting question. i ran into this:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/6/583
"[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Our data suggest that African American patients rate their visits with physicians as less participatory than whites. However, patients seeing physicians of their own race rate their physicians' decision-making styles as more participatory." .

That study doesn't really answer the question I was bringing up. While PDM is important, its not what I was questioning. I'm questioning the idea that both poor and minority patients are more willing to go to the doctor at all, if said doctor is their own race. I guess for the poor, the doctor would need to be poor? The other article you posted :

Dismantling affirmative-action programs, as is currently proposed, may threaten health care for both poor people and members of minority groups.

Just not sure I agree with that premise. We should, by that logic, be pushing black and Hispanic students into primary care at a higher rate than whites. I just think these are some of the things that actually prolong racism in our society. Race is so important to dying people that they wont go to the doctor unless he/she is of their same race?

 

[DntStopBelievin]

Compelling as that may be, I'm not sure that I completely agree with the premise of the whole study. Not saying its wrong or your wrong, just haven't made my mind up yet how I feel about it. Anyone got any studies showing that minorities are more likely to visit doctors if the doctors are their own race? I agree that happens to some degree, but not sure I believe the premise that it really affects minority health care that much.

Just my own thoughts on it.

I have a personal observation of the whole patients visit doctors of their own race thing. So i lived in a predominantly minority community which was mostly black, hispanic and west indian. There were two pediatricians in the area and i happened to visit both. One was Dr. S (Indian) and the other was Dr. A (Filipino). Whenever i went to Dr. S I noticed that his patients were mostly Indian (i mean everytime i went in, the only people in the waiting area were indian! but then again i noticed that the children's parents were more comfortable speaking the same language as the doctor). Dr. A on the other hand, had a diverse patient population: black, asian, hispanic, white. Sometimes people choose certain doctors because they have their culture in common and would make the visit more comfortable.

 

[7starmantis]

I have a personal observation of the whole patients visit doctors of their own race thing. So i lived in a predominantly minority community which was mostly black, hispanic and west indian. There were two pediatricians in the area and i happened to visit both. One was Dr. S (Indian) and the other was Dr. A (Filipino). Whenever i went to Dr. S I noticed that his patients were mostly Indian (i mean everytime i went in, the only people in the waiting area were indian! but then again i noticed that the children's parents were more comfortable speaking the same language as the doctor). Dr. A on the other hand, had a diverse patient population: black, asian, hispanic, white. Sometimes people choose certain doctors because they have their culture in common and would make the visit more comfortable.

While thats great anecdotal evidence of patients liking doctors of their own race, it doesn't mean that if Dr. S wasn't there, his patients would refuse to see Dr. A because he wasn't Indian. Thats the part I really have a problem with. I mean, its not like I sit awake at night, but I just don't believe that aspect of the argument.

 

[thamsenman]

Alright. Maybe I live in "lala" land. But I tend to trust empirical studies more than personal anecdotes of premed students who aren't even in medical school yet. I don't want to bicker with you. It's childish and a waste of time.

Um, I got into medical school though. So with a lot of work, I could be a physician and your colleague.

I think if you are going to benefit from AA, you should be obligated to work 5-10 years in disadvantaged communities. If admission committees are going to bend the rules for you, they should make sure you go back to underpriviledged communities and practice medicine not go to ClearWater Hills.

 

[thamsenman]

lol obviously these MANY black physicians you know so well clearly trump whatever is out there, like

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/20/1305

"[FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions Black and Hispanic physicians have a unique and important role in caring for poor, black, and Hispanic patients in California. Dismantling affirmative-action programs, as is currently proposed, may threaten health care for both poor people and members of minority groups.".

Fine, then why don't we make sure those physicians return to those communities if they are given special consideration for addressing that need?

 

[Pianoman32]

Fine, then why don't we make sure those physicians return to those communities if they are given special consideration for addressing that need?

Yeah, this is the problems I have with the whole URM issue. The goal is to get physicians into groups who are under-represented. However, where do we draw the line on how relatable a physician is to the patient population that is currently under-represented. Will a black doctor coming from a wealthy childhood in the suburbs be able to relate better to inner city patients? Or will a white doctor coming from a poor neighborhood in baltimore be able to better relate to their inner-city patients better?

I know socioeconomic status is taken into account on med school apps, but by no means do applicants get the URM bump (probably not even a fifth of this bump).

 

[medactar]

Then why not fill medical school seats with people from poverty-striken slums in Rwanda or Somalia or India? Deny all American graduates and give those seats to the least among us. You know, the ones who weren't lucky enough to be American or in a society that rewarded them for their race.

Why do we say "Boo hoo" to those people?

It isn't their fault that they were born in circumstances they cannot get out of, and it isn't just that colonial Europe raided and pillaged African nations....but we put those people in another "mental container" when it comes to social justice.

Social justice is just a euphemism for guilt. And it is applied very selectively.

Do you have guilt??? If not, why are you so angry? Very strange...

Anyway, American govt has a responsibility for the American people who they have systematically oppressed. America should stay out of the affairs of other nations. Does that answer your Somali question?

I never said we should give seats to the least among us. I said that we must have social justice. That means an equal playing field and even start. If one group reaches the finish line first then so be it. The problem is that one group gets a head start and until we stop the perpetual head start then programs like AA will be needed.

We, as a nation, prefer to give certain groups a head start then pick and choose when we should give the groups that have been held back a "chance". It makes certain people seem like saviors instead of recognizing that the only reason they needed to give those groups a "hand out" is because they have been systematically held back.

We love looking like heroes who are so sympathetic and self-sacrificing for those people who just so happen rolleyes to not be doing so well, don't we?


The truth is that if AfAms were doing poorly but all else were equal, AA would have no basis. But all else isn't equal. Until we fix the structural issues that make the playing field so uneven, we will have to deal with inadequate quick fixes like AA.

And no, I don't argue that AA is to address the shortage of doctors that serve the underserved. A minority physician can do whatever the heck he pleases and he does not have any obligation to serve any population if that is not his or her interest. Now we know that they are more likely to serve minority populations, which is great! We need to fix the issue of those populations getting inadequate health services. But to me fixing that issues is separate from AA. AA may help fix the issue but it would be an outcome of, not a reason for AA.

We keep looking at surface issues like they are so unrelated instead of dealing with the core problem. Why are certain people more comfortable with physicians of the same color? Why do white physicians hold lower views of black patients than white patients even if education, SE status and insurance status are controlled? Why is it that SE is still somewhat stratified by race? Why is it that quality of education (and therefore success in academia) is stratified by race?

We treat all these thing separately and refuse to see the obvious core issue. Certain races are still oppressed even if not officially on the books, we have not gained a system where we corrected the past injustice to give people an even playing field. Not only are there systematic limitations to addressing the issue, we have not dealt with self-mediated and internal racism effectively. Making people PC is not the answer. We just end up with people who externally seem/try to be egalitarian, but have not dealt with their core biases.

We will have to continue to "medicate the symptoms" forever if we don't address these issue.

Can you explain to me why there are so many black doctors working in suburban areas, with an eye toward getting hugely rich and treating only certain patients?

Why aren't they working in inner cities helping underrepresented communities?
Helping to address these inequalities?

Like I said, they have no obligation to do otherwise. If they are following their passion, more power to them.

 

[mipp0]

Let's all stay on topic and not get personal. This is a highly charged subject and emotional for many people.

I think it is fair to say that African-Americans have been discriminated against very heavily in the last 200 years.

I think it is fair to say that this results in some cost to current African-Americans.

There are two points that are being argued:

1. Have African-Americans received MORE discrimination than other races that are non-URM? Also important: have Hispanics received MORE?

2. Do these costs account for the entirety of their deficit in terms of education, or is there other stuff like the specific trajectory of culture and societal style in the last 1000 years? Not that any one culture is more or less "good"--but that Western college-level education is more derived from Western culture.

I think these two points are interesting, but also irrelevant.

In my opinion, standards should be held equal for everybody at the professional school level.

1. I am not opposed to additional funding or teaching to combat racism and counter historical grievances at the primary school level, in order to facilitate the development of an unoppressed mentality. However, at the time of matriculation in undergraduate college we are all adults (18+), and therefore should be fully accountable for our own actions for these four years, regardless of personal or ethnic history.

Yes there is still some residual effect of families, etc. This is true for everything, including crime. However, there is a point in which personal responsibility must completely override circumstantial responsibility, and to me that occurs at 18.

2. Yes, there is still inequality. Practically, changing admissions standards by group might help. But from a purely moral perspective, the way to address this is NOT by creating inequality in admissions standards because that does more harm than good.

Harm a: Creates a harmful dynamic between classmates and URM people who got in fairly. If medical school admissions were colorblind, this dynamic would be greatly reduced.

Harm b: Because medicine is still subject to the laws of economics, creating an unfair playingground, even if it's only slightly unfair (0.1%), is unattractive to top candidates against whom the odds are stacked (even if it's only stacked 1 cm high).

Harm c: We risk valuing the cultural experiences of one group over another, which means that when the two groups become equal in the future, there will still be residual friction.

Racism still exists. I have experienced it, although almost certainly not to the extent of anverage black kid. But it has also decreased significantly in the past 50 years--I realize there is overt and advert racism, but the trend for both is going downwards.

I believe that instituting colored policies in regards to admissions will perpetuate racism rather than allowing the current trend to continue.

Furthermore, world history is not something that is easily corrected for. Each group has the right to some reparation by some other group at some point in history. Yes maybe you can argue that Africans have had it worst, I am certainly not knowledgeable to calculate it. But who is knowledgeable enough? We have only gone through the lens of our own culture and see history from our own perspective.

Nobody has themselves lived centuries of slavery and oppression--you might face the aftereffects and residual, but how much is difficult to calculate.

Very nice. What I've always argued.

 

[mipp0]

Um, I got into medical school though. So with a lot of work, I could be a physician and your colleague.

I think if you are going to benefit from AA, you should be obligated to work 5-10 years in disadvantaged communities. If admission committees are going to bend the rules for you, they should make sure you go back to underpriviledged communities and practice medicine not go to ClearWater Hills.

THANK YOU

 

[7starmantis]

Do you have guilt??? If not, why are you so angry? Very strange...

Anyway, American govt has a responsibility for the American people who they have systematically oppressed. America should stay out of the affairs of other nations. Does that answer your Somali question?

I never said we should give seats to the least among us. I said that we must have social justice. That means an equal playing field and even start. If one group reaches the finish line first then so be it. The problem is that one group gets a head start and until we stop the perpetual head start then programs like AA will be needed.

We, as a nation, prefer to give certain groups a head start then pick and choose when we should give the groups that have been held back a "chance". It makes certain people seem like saviors instead of recognizing that the only reason they needed to give those groups a "hand out" is because they have been systematically held back.

We love looking like heroes who are so sympathetic and self-sacrificing for those people who just so happen rolleyes to not be doing so well, don't we?


The truth is that if AfAms were doing poorly but all else were equal, AA would have no basis. But all else isn't equal. Until we fix the structural issues that make the playing field so uneven, we will have to deal with inadequate quick fixes like AA.

And no, I don't argue that AA is to address the shortage of doctors that serve the underserved. A minority physician can do whatever the heck he pleases and he does not have any obligation to serve any population if that is not his or her interest. Now we know that they are more likely to serve minority populations, which is great! We need to fix the issue of those populations getting inadequate health services. But to me fixing that issues is separate from AA. AA may help fix the issue but it would be an outcome of, not a reason for AA.

We keep looking at surface issues like they are so unrelated instead of dealing with the core problem. Why are certain people more comfortable with physicians of the same color? Why do white physicians hold lower views of black patients than white patients even if education, SE status and insurance status are controlled? Why is it that SE is still somewhat stratified by race? Why is it that quality of education (and therefore success in academia) is stratified by race?

We treat all these thing separately and refuse to see the obvious core issue. Certain races are still oppressed even if not officially on the books, we have not gained a system where we corrected the past injustice to give people an even playing field. Not only are there systematic limitations to addressing the issue, we have not dealt with self-mediated and internal racism effectively. Making people PC is not the answer. We just end up with people who externally seem/try to be egalitarian, but have not dealt with their core biases.

We will have to continue to "medicate the symptoms" forever if we don't address these issue.


Like I said, they have no obligation to do otherwise. If they are following their passion, more power to them.

I was going to respond to this systematically but just can't. I keep

Its ideas like what have been presented in this post that I (personally) feel promote racism more than anything else in America today. Not saying your a racist (calm down people) I'm just saying this perpetual focus on the governments responsibility to a race is whats hurting us. I'm native american, how long down my family tree should the government be responsible for? This is asinine. When would you say the government has "paid back" their "systematic oppression" of people? At what point am I responsible for my own future and life? What part is the government responsible for and what part am I? It would be nice to know so I can stop trying to be responsible for my entire wellbeing and future.

 

[unimaginative]

Fine, then why don't we make sure those physicians return to those communities if they are given special consideration for addressing that need?

Can someone please make your avatar return to where it came from? That thing is downright offensive to any self-respecting person.

 

[medactar]

Just to put in my two cents because I thought the OP's post was interesting.

I am a american chinese medical student who scored a 29 and had a 3.1 gpa (below my school's average matriculant's 33 and 3.8 gpa. My school is the number 1 if not number 2 "ranked" school in Texas and top 20 in the nation )

I only mention this because I don't think the system is as flawed as the op thinks. I know my acceptance was based largely on overcoming my socioeconomic status and caring about my community that I was involved in.

Just wanted to repost this personal anecdote.

I was going to respond to this systematically but just can't. I keep

Its ideas like what have been presented in this post that I (personally) feel promote racism more than anything else in America today. Not saying your a racist (calm down people) I'm just saying this perpetual focus on the governments responsibility to a race is whats hurting us. I'm native american, how long down my family tree should the government be responsible for? This is asinine. When would you say the government has "paid back" their "systematic oppression" of people? At what point am I responsible for my own future and life? What part is the government responsible for and what part am I? It would be nice to know so I can stop trying to be responsible for my entire wellbeing and future.

I'll ignore your shenanigans and answer your real questions.

The gov't/ policies should be responsible for addressing issues/ problems that their policies created... no matter the race of those affected

So how far back? If there is evidence that their policies lead to differential outcomes then however far back that is.

Lol at you trying to be responsible for your wellbeing and future. Love the relevance.

If I haul off and hit a guy in his car and it so happens that he becomes cripple and now can't work, I would be sued and would have to pay for his medical care. But guess what, I would also have to reimburse him for his lost income. I could say "eff you, take care of yourself. I'll pay for the med bills but anything that came about because I hit you is your responsibility." But that would not be justice.


As for native americans, the govt is responsible for pretty darn far back... but that's another post.

Here are a few clips of interest for NA health... particularly the Pima people and diabetes and how they relate to policies.

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/video_clips_detail.php?res_id=216

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/video_clips_detail.php?res_id=74

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/video_clips_detail.php?res_id=73

http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/video_clips_detail.php?res_id=72


People seem more interested in proving their point or getting self righteous than going into the root of the problem. Superficial reasoning isn't going to solve anything.

I'm going to assume you were throwing up because you had an awesome New Year's Eve.

 

[thamsenman]

I was going to respond to this systematically but just can't. I keep

Its ideas like what have been presented in this post that I (personally) feel promote racism more than anything else in America today. Not saying your a racist (calm down people) I'm just saying this perpetual focus on the governments responsibility to a race is whats hurting us. I'm native american, how long down my family tree should the government be responsible for? This is asinine. When would you say the government has "paid back" their "systematic oppression" of people? At what point am I responsible for my own future and life? What part is the government responsible for and what part am I? It would be nice to know so I can stop trying to be responsible for my entire wellbeing and future.

Thank you. Couldn't be more true.

 

[thamsenman]

Do you have guilt??? If not, why are you so angry? Very strange...

Anyway, American govt has a responsibility for the American people who they have systematically oppressed. America should stay out of the affairs of other nations. Does that answer your Somali question?

I never said we should give seats to the least among us. I said that we must have social justice. That means an equal playing field and even start. If one group reaches the finish line first then so be it. The problem is that one group gets a head start and until we stop the perpetual head start then programs like AA will be needed.

We, as a nation, prefer to give certain groups a head start then pick and choose when we should give the groups that have been held back a "chance". It makes certain people seem like saviors instead of recognizing that the only reason they needed to give those groups a "hand out" is because they have been systematically held back.

We love looking like heroes who are so sympathetic and self-sacrificing for those people who just so happen rolleyes to not be doing so well, don't we?


The truth is that if AfAms were doing poorly but all else were equal, AA would have no basis. But all else isn't equal. Until we fix the structural issues that make the playing field so uneven, we will have to deal with inadequate quick fixes like AA.

And no, I don't argue that AA is to address the shortage of doctors that serve the underserved. A minority physician can do whatever the heck he pleases and he does not have any obligation to serve any population if that is not his or her interest. Now we know that they are more likely to serve minority populations, which is great! We need to fix the issue of those populations getting inadequate health services. But to me fixing that issues is separate from AA. AA may help fix the issue but it would be an outcome of, not a reason for AA.

We keep looking at surface issues like they are so unrelated instead of dealing with the core problem. Why are certain people more comfortable with physicians of the same color? Why do white physicians hold lower views of black patients than white patients even if education, SE status and insurance status are controlled? Why is it that SE is still somewhat stratified by race? Why is it that quality of education (and therefore success in academia) is stratified by race?

We treat all these thing separately and refuse to see the obvious core issue. Certain races are still oppressed even if not officially on the books, we have not gained a system where we corrected the past injustice to give people an even playing field. Not only are there systematic limitations to addressing the issue, we have not dealt with self-mediated and internal racism effectively. Making people PC is not the answer. We just end up with people who externally seem/try to be egalitarian, but have not dealt with their core biases.

We will have to continue to "medicate the symptoms" forever if we don't address these issue.


Like I said, they have no obligation to do otherwise. If they are following their passion, more power to them.

I agree the bolded, but do think they should earn admission like everyone else if they don't intend to address that need. No special consideration should be given if they aren't firmly committed to that kind of work. They should be granted admission on an even playing field with requirements like everyone else. If they earn it, that's fine.

But if AA is used, I think the people giving those benefits should make sure that the need is addressed. I even wouldn't be against that and a loan forgiveness program. What I don't like is having it both ways 1) saying whatever you have to, to get in and getting special treatment and 2) matriculating and having no intention of ever addressing that need.

By the way: No one gave many Asian-Americans any head-start. Read your history. Chinese working on the railroads? Do they act like America owes them something? Would anyone care if they did. AA is purely political.
I don't have any guilt about AA, my ancestors were not slave-owners or even Americans in the 1800s-late 1970s. But I am angry that well-qualified people are held to different standards because they aren't a certain race, and that certain groups of URMs who are wealthy, knowingly take advantage of that.

 

[medactar]

was going to respond to this systematically but just can't. I keep

Its ideas like what have been presented in this post that I (personally) feel promote racism more than anything else in America today. Not saying your a racist (calm down people) I'm just saying this perpetual focus on the governments responsibility to a race is whats hurting us. I'm native american, how long down my family tree should the government be responsible for? This is asinine. When would you say the government has "paid back" their "systematic oppression" of people? At what point am I responsible for my own future and life? What part is the government responsible for and what part am I? It would be nice to know so I can stop trying to be responsible for my entire wellbeing and future.

Thank you. Couldn't be more true.

In which way is it true? Do you have any evidence (anecdotal or peer-reviewed research) that focusing on gov't responsibility is hurting 'us'?

Or do you just talk as a way to self-soothe?

 

[betheltim]

i dont recall me or my family exploiting any minorities...do I owe them something?

Just throwing this out there, but this simply reflects a societal value, rather than an inherent truth (in society)... If your values are placed among those of justice and equality, your response to that would be different, but as it stands now, your response reflects the values of autonomy and liberty. Regardless, it's important to reflect on these values and their contextual significance to our generation(s), particularly with respect to the health professions and health outcomes. Is it not true that, ultimately, URM/AA admissions, in whatever respect they are in place, are of benefit to society as a whole? Does giving special regard to URMs produce good physicians, which ultimately addresses what we are (likely) really after: good health outcomes? I would venture to say that if social inequality on a health professional level, as well with regard to wholesale social inequality, is addressed with respect to our culture's previous misstep with regard to racial disparities (in particular) and medical school admissions, then it's a positive thing. Of course, I would be upset if it resulted in me losing a seat in a medical school class, but I would be more concerned if the URM was not qualified (personally, I find it hard to believe that a medical school would admit a student that was explicitly unqualified to begin with...).

All that to say that I find it hard to call the process racist, per se, because medical schools are ultimately in the business of producing capable physicians that can contribute to improving health on both a macroscopic, societal level and an individual level; thus, if admitting more URMs with a specific tilt for them improves social standing, trust, and other attributes of the physician-population relationship, then it's a successful and worthwhile decision.

Again, clearly it discriminates based on race, but perhaps the intended outcomes warrant such discretion.

Anyway, was I off-topic? I'm not sure what the topic is, anymore...

 

[futureboy]

Wow, this thread is up to almost 550 posts. Not bad, considering the OP was banned.

 

[medactar]

I agree the bolded, but do think they should earn admission like everyone else if they don't intend to address that need. No special consideration should be given if they aren't firmly committed to that kind of work. They should be granted admission on an even playing field with requirements like everyone else. If they earn it, that's fine.

But if AA is used, I think the people giving those benefits should make sure that the need is addressed. I even wouldn't be against that and a loan forgiveness program. What I don't like is having it both ways 1) saying whatever you have to, to get in and getting special treatment and 2) matriculating and having no intention of ever addressing that need.

I don't have any guilt about AA, my ancestors were not slave-owners or even Americans in the 1800s-late 1970s. But I am angry that well-qualified people are held to different standards because they aren't a certain race, and that certain groups of URMs who are wealthy, knowingly take advantage of that.

Like I said in my post, AA should not be about getting more doctors to serve poor areas or how wealthy the student is.... but you probably didn't read my post. That or you enjoy responding to arguments with irrelevant statements.