My Rant Against Med School Admissions

[thamsenman]

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?

There are no limits to any program good enough to a group that feels entitled. And by promoting AA, you are hurting many other groups, in my opinion.

Also, please do not make this personal. I am having a debate with you and you have no need to make inferences about how I talk. Get over yourself.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thamsenman]

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.

Then fine. You know what I think? AA is pointless and utterly absurd for rewarding some people at the expense of other people, none of whom were responsible for the characteristics or structure of society.

By the way, I didn't read your post. It just sounded nasty from the beginning and deeply personal.

 

[medactar]

There are no limits to any program good enough to a group that feels entitled. And by promoting AA, you are hurting many other groups, in my opinion.

Also, please do not make this personal. I am having a debate with you and you have no need to make inferences about how I talk. Get over yourself.

Then fine. You know what I think? AA is pointless and utterly absurd for rewarding some people at the expense of other people, none of whom were responsible for the characteristics or structure of society.

ok.

I'm not sure how much of a debate we were having. When people debate, they build upon points made by their "opponent". You have ignored any point that I made (neither challenging them or accepting them). You assume my stance on the issue based on ??? possibly other people's reasoning for AA and you seem to continue to repeat yourself with no regard to my specific argument.


Have a great day.

 

[thamsenman]

ok.

I'm not sure how much of a debate we were having. When people debate, they build upon points made by their "opponent". You have ignored any point that I made (neither challenging them or accepting them). You assume my stance on the issue based on ??? possibly other people's reasoning for AA and you seem to continue to repeat yourself with no regard to my specific argument.


Have a great day.

Your post was too circuitious to understand for me. Forgive me. I'm not used to thinking in circles.

 

[medactar]

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?

I speak specifically about policies addressing past policies which caused harm. So if a past policy caused differences in receipt of education, then a new policy should address those mistakes. If a past policy affected housing, then a new policy should focus on fixing that. If a past policy affected differential medical care, then a new policy must fix it.

I am very specific. It's not about "boo hoo america was mean to URMs and now you have to make them feel better." It's about something being structurally wrong and trying to fix it.

That being said, how did Asian-Americans working on the rail road differentially affect their education in the past or currently? I would like to hear your perspective.

 

[thamsenman]

I speak specifically about policies addressing past policies which caused harm. So if a past policy caused differences in receipt of education, then a new policy should address those mistakes. If a past policy affected housing, then a new policy should focus on fixing that. If a past policy affected differential medical care, then a new policy must fix it.

I am very specific. It's not about "boo hoo america was mean to URMs and now you have to make them feel better." It's about something being structurally wrong and trying to fix it.

That being said, how did Asian-Americans working on the rail road differentially affect their education in the past or currently? I would like to hear your perspective.

What about your "new policy" causing differences in the reciept of education of other groups? Poor Asians and whites? Who are not rich enough to afford high-quality, "prepped" education, but not fashionable to the government enough to be picked up. What about the delivery of their education? Where do they get the policy that helps them out?

Oh right. They don't need one, because you don't think what they go through is akin to discrimination. They don't get equal opportunity. They get equal opportunity with all Asians. My, that was a convenient little "fix".

I do not think new policies should be enacted to rectify these wrongs, on the backs of people who were 1) not responsible for them in any way, even through descendants or 2) people who want to play the game fairly.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You want to rectify this fairly? Print a list of descendants from all slave-owners and supporters of segregation and make them pay reparations. Argue that, since the condition of certain people was caused by their ancestors, certain groups have rights to the fruits they enjoy from their labor, inheritance, etc.

Chinese working on the railroads? They were subjugated in personally-degrading, hard work where they often died. Corralled into work-camps and ghettos, where they did not get the advantages of good education or the support of a society that encouraged it.

 

[TaylorMDhopeful]

I have been gone for a while. I don't really see what is really still being debated that hasn't been answered on this thread at some point already.

Are URM taking seats away from Asians or Caucasians?
Theoretically, Yes. In theory by applying to medical school anyone would be taking seats from another person. But those seats don't belong to anyone in particular outside of the person who earns it. No one is entitled to those seats and it is up to the adcoms at each school to determine what students fit their "profile" and what students they think will succeed and be good doctors.

Are URMs getting into medical school with stats lower than their peers?
Some are, some aren't. Just like with any other group. A large proportion of URMs (nearly 50%) matriculate at HBCU, PR and Caribbean medical schools. These medical schools are known to accept students with lower grades and scores to help fulfill their mission of serving the underserved and increasing URM presence in medical schools and the field. Not one study has shown that URMs are getting into all schools around the country with consistently lower stats.

Do Asians and Caucasians have it bad because of URMs?
No, URMs are still underrepresented for a reason. Their acceptance rates are not high overall and not higher than the rates of Asians and Caucasians getting in. Well then some people say look at the chart of GPA/MCAT combos and why are Asians and Caucasians getting in at lower percentages for the same combo? There is a much smaller number of applicants in the URM pool. Therefore URMs with high stats are more likely to stand out because of the small number of them and applicants overall. I can guarantee you that for every ORM applicant out there with a 3.7 and 34 there are hundreds more of you within that range. There are high stat URMs, average stat URMs and low stat URMs. But this can be said for all groups (just check out the under 30 MCAT acceptances and interview threads). Just because of the sheer number of applicants (good ones) everyone is at a disadvantage when more applicants apply because there are only so many interview slots and ultimately school seats.


Do URMs actually go on to give back to their underserved communities and what proportion are primary care?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594783/?page=1


Study findings implicate that URMs overall were more sensitive to the needs of underserved communities, giving back to the community and more likely to work in these areas. The experience of working with the underserved was less influential in practice among the Asian and Caucasian participants.

The data is a little old but I don't think that the numbers have changed large enough to make the point I'm trying to make false. 5.4% of about 99,000 residents were African American in 2003. Of the 5,359 African American residents :1,097 internal medicine , 618 family practice and 566 were ob/gyn. Making about 40% primary care doctors in training.

Why are there perceived differences between URMs and Caucasians or Asians?

The two prevailing cons to class-based affirmative action are that the basis of affirmative action execution was to interrupt the racial and ethnic discrimination and segregation, regardless of class, and, as mentioned previously, minority students from middle-class families have been shown to have greater academic disadvantage as measured by GPA and SAT scores than whites and Asians. These disadvantages are not attributed to genetic factors, but are influenced by the early and consistent inequalities encountered in the educational field from kindergarten to higher education.

1. Nickens Herbert W., Cohen Jordan J.: On Affirmative Action. JAMA 1996, 275:572-574.
2. Fraser S: The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence, and The Future of America.New York, NY, Basic Books 1995.
3. Herrstein RJ: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.New York, NY, Free Press 1994.

Why not just use socioeconomically based admission?

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...l_Admission_Approaches__Challenges_and.2.aspx

In a 2003 report, Cooper addressed the socioeconomic barriers to educational success and their impact on medical school applications. Citing a statistic that 30% of black and Hispanic families exist on less than 1.25 times the income defined as the U.S. poverty level (versus 11% and 14% for whites and Asians, respectively) and the compounding effect of single-mother families among blacks and Hispanics, Cooper concludes, It is not difficult to overlay these statistics with those of reading achievement in the third grade and to extrapolate these to the likelihood of advance placement courses in 12th grade, direct entry into a four-year college, and, ultimately, attainment of a bachelor's degree, the gates through which students must pass en route to medical school. It is important, therefore, to consider whether race-neutral alternatives that address the socioeconomic barriers to medical education can help build a racially and ethnically diverse medical school class.

A major concern, however, is the use of socioeconomically based alternatives as a proxy for race and ethnicity in admission decisions. The two variables are not interchangeable. Although persons from racial and ethnic minority groups are overrepresented in the lower socioeconomic classes in the United States, the fact that there are so many more whites than blacks (for example) greatly affects the racial and ethnic representations in cohorts based on socioeconomic status. And, when unmediated consideration of traditional measures remains part of the admission process, socioeconomic status will not redress gaps in racial and ethnic underrepresentation on college campuses.

Is any of this AA or perceived advantage right?

Everyone will have their own opinion and you can't expect to change someone's opinion that has been engrained in someone's head for so long. It is up to you to decide but either way you decide there will still be a need for URM physicians and someone to help the underserved populations of this country.

Why is diversity needed? (straight from JAMA)

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif](1) adequate representation among students and faculty of the diversity in US society is indispensable for quality medical education; (2) increasing the diversity of the physician workforce will improve access to health care for underserved populations; (3) increasing the diversity of the research workforce can accelerate advances in medical and public health research; and (4) diversity among managers of health care organizations makes good business sense..

Selection based solely on academic qualifications such as GPA and MCAT scores does not achieve racial and ethnic diversity in medical school, nor does it adequately predict success as practicing physicians. However, race-conscious preference yields greater practice in underserved and often minority populations, furthers our biomedical research progression, augments health care for minority patients, and fosters an exceptional medical school environment where students are better able to serve an increasingly multicultural society.Students cannot be selected solely on academic qualifications, for instance, on the basis of Grade Point Averages (GPA) and Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) scores. As statistical analyses have shown, GPA and MCAT scores are good (though not perfect) predictors for passing Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) [6,7], a required examination for students to progress to the clinical rotation portion of their undergraduate medical studies. However, GPA and MCAT scores are not great predictors of achievements in medical training and success in practicing medicine. There is no evidence to attribute high undergraduate GPAs or MCAT scores to exceptional academic performance during medical school or more importantly to a great level of quality health care a student ultimately provides as a practitioner. But, when combined with the other selection factors, the predictability is dramatically increased. There are "non-cognitive" qualities physicians posses that make them "great doctors". These characteristics are measures of competency and compassion, for example, the overall commitment to serve society's medically needy, integrity, truthfulness, and determination. Such admired attributes cannot be adequately assessed by GPA or MCAT performance. Personal statements have been extensively used to evaluate applicant communications abilities, although hardships and obstacles encountered by applicants are often expressed in these documents and considered by evaluators in the admissions process.


"Mend it, but don't end it." --President William Jefferson Clinton
America's extremely discriminatory past fostered the exclusive practice of medicine by white men. Women and members of minority groups and lower socioeconomic classes were barred or hindered from attaining the dignified and prestigious medical degree (MD).

 

[medactar]

What about your "new policy" causing differences in the reciept of education of other groups? Poor Asians and whites? Who are not rich enough to afford high-quality, "prepped" education, but not fashionable to the government enough to be picked up. What about the delivery of their education? Where do they get the policy that helps them out?

Oh right. They don't need one, because you don't think what they go through is akin to discrimination. They don't get equal opportunity. They get equal opportunity with all Asians. My, that was a convenient little "fix".

I do not think new policies should be enacted to rectify these wrongs, on the backs of people who were 1) not responsible for them in any way, even through descendants or 2) people who want to play the game fairly.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You want to rectify this fairly? Print a list of descendants from all slave-owners and supporters of segregation and make them pay reparations. Argue that, since the condition of certain people was caused by their ancestors, certain groups have rights to the fruits they enjoy from their labor, inheritance, etc.

Chinese working on the railroads? They were subjugated in personally-degrading, hard work where they often died. Corralled into work-camps and ghettos, where they did not get the advantages of good education or the support of a society that encouraged it.

I think you are misunderstanding me or choosing not to see what I am saying. What policies led to the Asians and whites being poor? If there were policies that led to that, then there should be policies to fix it. The vast majority of Asians who came to the U.S. did so by choice and knew the sacrifices they had to make. The same cannot be said about certain other groups. Either way, I would never play the "who had it worse" game. Those things really have nothing to do with my point.

I said in a previous post that if there was an even playing field and some people still ended up on the bottom and some on top then there would be no argument for AA. But the playing field is not even.

I hope you get my point and if not here is a book that you can check out.

Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Positions: Education, Politics, Culture)


by Tim Wise

We are going in circles so unless you have something fresh and intriguing to add, I will stop discussing this issue with you.

 

[schrizto]

I hope you get my point and if not here is a book that you can check out.

Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Positions: Education, Politics, Culture)


by Tim Wise

We are going in circles so unless you have something fresh and intriguing to add, I will stop discussing this issue with you.

lol, was the photo necessary? it was just amusing to see a random picture of some dude in a serious post.

 

[7starmantis]

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

Great, ignore what you can't respond to and answer what you can

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.

As one who asks for only peer reviewed sources for proof I find it ironic that you ask for evidence that "their policies lead to differential outcomes" especially since the "outcome" is still being played out. So now that I'm (native american) accepted in med school the government is off the hook for native americans? Oh wait, that was part of my question that you chose to ignore wasn't it. If you can't quantify when enough is actually enough, how are we supposed to "pay for our oppression"? And by your logic we could hold lots of people and groups and situations, and life experiences responsible for "lesser outcomes" in life and avoid all personal responsibility. Why stop at the US Government (I mean aside from their money printing abilities)? I was home schooled for part of my life in a different country, my parents should repay me for that oppression and lack of "normal" life experiences. I once caught the flu and nearly died as a child, I should hold whomever it was who passed that virus along responsible for my missed school and possibly why I had to apply to med school twice! Seriously, you lack the ability to quantify and control what your touting.

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.

Not sure what you mean by the first statement. Maybe you should clarify, you might be making a huge assumption about me or my point here. somehow I doubt it will happen though.

Justice you say, and could not stay for an answer. Justice to whom, decided by whom, based on who or what? I don't agree that accidents or coincidents make a slave of those involved. We have become so litigious as a people because we want to blame somebody, anybody. So the ice on the road that caused the accident should cast blame on whom exactly? We could sue God, but then thats not really PC because some dont believe in God. Oh I know, what about Old Man Winter, can we make him responsibly for the "lesser outcome"? And how far into that mans family tree must Old Man Winter pay? I mean certainly he affects every member of the family tree to some degree if we dilute victimism to its near homeopathic amounts. how far can we legitimately say the effects have reached?

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

Another post? Pretty far back? Seriously? Its awfully relevant to this discussion. So what percentage of NA blood must a person have to receive said benefit? What life experiences must a person have to claim "lesser outcome"? Who quantifies and peer reviews these decisions? Dont duck out of the issue when it gets hard to hold your point. If its any race, then NA should be part of the discussion.

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

Who are you, Van Jones? I see alot of hearsay and conspiracy theories in your clips, but very little accurate and factual evidence. I spent time growing up on reservations, I've seen first hand the healthcare, and education issues. Having done so I can say emphatically that while historic events may have shaped a people's future, personal responsibility or lack there of has destroyed a people's heritage and livelihood. So you are proposing the US Government somehow pays every person of Pima decent (whatever heritage % or proof of it provided) for the rest of the survival of the earth? Your convictions may be noble but you can't possibly quantify all the myriads of circumstances and changes in a persons life to predict outcome and responsibility of it after 200 years. Bottom line is your proposing reparations for every person who claims "lesser outcome" via interference by the US government and I can say, with the taxes and traffic ticket fines my family has amassed over the last 100 years I would be in a much different place in life. Guess I deserve some sort of reparation as well then, eh? What your points lack is a sense of personal responsibility and change. Every action the government takes is going to effect people both positively and negatively. If we hold ourselves to such lofty idealistic principles nothing could every get done. I mean, should we offer reparations for the 8th generation of California farmers in 100 years? While we are on it, I hold every member of the human race responsible for global climate change and want my effing reparations now while I can still benefit.

Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences. To try and hold everyone responsible for every possible unintended consequence of every act is naïve. Sure bad things were done to my relatives, sure it has made it tough on some people, but has it made it any more tough than other life experiences? Is a generation responsible for things that happened before any of them were alive? I guess we simply disagree. That’s fine. I doubt I’ll be back in this thread either, just pontificating ones firmly held bias is not getting anybody anywhere.

Off my soapbox now...

 

[7starmantis]

URMs are still underrepresented for a reason. Their acceptance rates are not high overall and not higher than the rates of Asians and Caucasians getting in.

One other thing I wanted to say before leaving. The issue of AA and such has many great benefits, but at its core we are missing the mark. Typical liberal band-aid on a hemorrhage type situation. We say URM have lower acceptance rates and instead of asking why that is and addressing the root of the issue we say, lets pass a law to make all acceptance stats equal. I propose that doesn’t even address equality between races but simply furthers the bad situation. We didn’t address education of the URM’s, or their lack of experiences in medicine, or anything similar. We just said lets pass a law and then we can sleep well at night. The real issues are what needs addressing not federal government involvement in trying to make things appear equal.

Focusing on “policies” that effected people is simply not valid or correct in any way. Somehow making it the responsibility of the government if there was a racially hurtful policy, but not really caring if consequences of other actions caused serious racial inequality. You seem to be contradicting yourself by this position and not even realizing it. If I had a child and wanted him/her to be “equal” with all the other kids (which I wouldn’t) why would I try and get all test grades to be the same when I could simply educate my child to help him pass the tests? The old Native American adage (seems fitting) about giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Which, I ask, is really making the most difference in the long run and actually helping the party in question?

 

[medactar]

Great, ignore what you can't respond to and answer what you can [My answer to all those questions was that when the playing field is equal, then that's where the gov't responsibility stops. When you mess something up, your responsibility ends when you fix it. How is that hard to understand? I ignored your rude comments and personal insults, which I view as shenanigans] As one who asks for only peer reviewed sources for proof I find it ironic that you ask for evidence that "their policies lead to differential outcomes" especially since the "outcome" is still being played out. [ uuum okaaay] So now that I'm (native american) accepted in med school the government is off the hook for native americans? Oh wait, that was part of my question that you chose to ignore wasn't it. If you can't quantify when enough is actually enough, how are we supposed to "pay for our oppression"? [It's not about paying for oppression, it is about creating policies that address the harm that past policies produced. You seem to be thinking individually where I am considering this communally] And by your logic we could hold lots of people and groups and situations, and life experiences responsible for "lesser outcomes" in life and avoid all personal responsibility. Why stop at the US Government (I mean aside from their money printing abilities)? I was home schooled for part of my life in a different country, my parents should repay me for that oppression and lack of "normal" life experiences. I once caught the flu and nearly died as a child, I should hold whomever it was who passed that virus along responsible for my missed school and possibly why I had to apply to med school twice! [lolz @ you comparing racist policies with getting the flu :crazy:] Seriously, you lack the ability to quantify and control what your touting. [I have quantified them with peer reviewed studies and history. I'm sure if you look upthread and in the other AA thread you will see. Most people don't read the studies though because either they are not interested or they don't like to hear evidence which directly contradicts what they firmly believe]

Not sure what you mean by the first statement. Maybe you should clarify, you might be making a huge assumption about me or my point here. somehow I doubt it will happen though. [I meant that your statement was irrelevant to the discussion at hand]

Justice you say, and could not stay for an answer. Justice to whom, decided by whom, based on who or what? I don't agree that accidents or coincidents make a slave of those involved. [Do you really feel like slavery, Jim Crow, the extermination of people, moving people off their land, stripping them of their culture and way of life, redirection of resources are coincidences and accidents??? Justice should be extended to people who have been differentially oppressed by government policies. The justice should be from government policies] We have become so litigious as a people because we want to blame somebody, anybody. So the ice on the road that caused the accident should cast blame on whom exactly? [no but if there is a policy to leave ice on the roads of all Latino neighborhoods, for ex., and clean all white neighborhoods then the policy should be changed and those who are differentially affected should get compensation] We could sue God, but then thats not really PC because some dont believe in God. Oh I know, what about Old Man Winter, can we make him responsibly for the "lesser outcome"? And how far into that mans family tree must Old Man Winter pay? I mean certainly he affects every member of the family tree to some degree if we dilute victimism to its near homeopathic amounts. how far can we legitimately say the effects have reached?

Another post? Pretty far back? Seriously? Its awfully relevant to this discussion. So what percentage of NA blood must a person have to receive said benefit? What life experiences must a person have to claim "lesser outcome"? [uhhhhh.... You seem to be really highly emotional at the moment. The answers to the questions depend on the specific problem]

Who quantifies and peer reviews these decisions? [I do and have provided them in these discussions. Are there any points that I made that you want to be backed up by research or history? If so, just ask.] Dont duck out of the issue when it gets hard to hold your point. If its any race, then NA should be part of the discussion. [I agree... not sure why you think otherwise]

Who are you, Van Jones? I see alot of hearsay and conspiracy theories in your clips, but very little accurate and factual evidence. [Which parts of those clips specifically did you think were not factual. Please be specific.] I spent time growing up on reservations, I've seen first hand the healthcare, and education issues. Having done so I can say emphatically that while historic events may have shaped a people's future, personal responsibility or lack there of has destroyed a people's heritage and livelihood. So you are proposing the US Government somehow pays every person of Pima decent (whatever heritage % or proof of it provided) for the rest of the survival of the earth? [When did I propose this? The clip shows that they were offered certain services like health care in exchange for their land. Currently the allocation for each NA is a small fraction for the allocation of medicaid per person. What quality of medical care are they expected to have with this? It says millions of dollars are spent on genetic research on diabetes in the region but they will not allocate 40K for a PE teacher. You misunderstand my stance and seem to think I want individuals to get compensated. No, I think structural change is necessary.]Your convictions may be noble but you can't possibly quantify all the myriads of circumstances and changes in a persons life to predict outcome and responsibility of it after 200 years. Bottom line is your proposing reparations for every person who claims "lesser outcome" via interference by the US government and I can say, with the taxes and traffic ticket fines my family has amassed over the last 100 years I would be in a much different place in life. Guess I deserve some sort of reparation as well then, eh? What your points lack is a sense of personal responsibility and change. Every action the government takes is going to effect people both positively and negatively. If we hold ourselves to such lofty idealistic principles nothing could every get done. I mean, should we offer reparations for the 8th generation of California farmers in 100 years? While we are on it, I hold every member of the human race responsible for global climate change and want my effing reparations now while I can still benefit.

Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences. To try and hold everyone responsible for every possible unintended consequence of every act is naïve. [Wow... unintended? Really? you think these policies are unintended? Clearly we work from a different base of knowledge.] Sure bad things were done to my relatives, sure it has made it tough on some people, but has it made it any more tough than other life experiences? Is a generation responsible for things that happened before any of them were alive? I guess we simply disagree. That's fine. I doubt I'll be back in this thread either, just pontificating ones firmly held bias is not getting anybody anywhere.

Off my soapbox now...

[My answers]

I am not sure which of these questions were not answered by me previously. I am repeating myself. If there is nothing new, bon nuit.

 

[medactar]

One other thing I wanted to say before leaving. The issue of AA and such has many great benefits, but at its core we are missing the mark. Typical liberal band-aid on a hemorrhage type situation. We say URM have lower acceptance rates and instead of asking why that is and addressing the root of the issue we say, lets pass a law to make all acceptance stats equal. I propose that doesn’t even address equality between races but simply furthers the bad situation. We didn’t address education of the URM’s, or their lack of experiences in medicine, or anything similar. We just said lets pass a law and then we can sleep well at night. The real issues are what needs addressing not federal government involvement in trying to make things appear equal.

Focusing on “policies” that effected people is simply not valid or correct in any way. Somehow making it the responsibility of the government if there was a racially hurtful policy, but not really caring if consequences of other actions caused serious racial inequality. You seem to be contradicting yourself by this position and not even realizing it. If I had a child and wanted him/her to be “equal” with all the other kids (which I wouldn’t) why would I try and get all test grades to be the same when I could simply educate my child to help him pass the tests? The old Native American adage (seems fitting) about giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Which, I ask, is really making the most difference in the long run and actually helping the party in question?

Wow this is so hilarious because I said this many times at different points during this thread. Clearly you are just emotional about the term "policies". I said that because we refuse to address the main causes of these inequities, AA is the current (lesser, flawed) choice. But guess what? People refuse to address the causes of inequities (which you somehow think are mistakes and have nothing to do with policies).

BTW, it is very silly saying the unnatural causes clips are conspiracy theory. I guess all the historical evidence provided and the medical and public health professionals involved in this series are just bunk??

 

[riverjib]

In particular, my rant against how the med school admissions process selectively discriminates against Caucasians and Asians. First, a little bit about myself: I am an Asian male attending Columbia University. My GPA is 3.9+, and I got a 39S on my MCAT. I have 2 years of research, countless hours of volunteer experience, work experience in both medical and non-medical fields, and leadership positions in school clubs and student organizations. My recommendation letters were written by professors who really knew and liked my work, so I presume that they wrote great letters. And I live in South Jersey.

So far, I have gotten into four medical schools: Tufts, UMDNJ-NJMS, NYU, and Temple. Let me first say that I am thankful for receiving these four acceptances, and I am glad that I will be able to pursue my dream of becoming a physician. However, the number of waitlist and rejection decisions that I have received really bothers me. I was waitlisted at Mount Sinai, the University of Chicago, and even Robert Wood Johnson as an in-state NJ resident, which is extremely perplexing. I was rejected without even receiving an interview invite at Cornell and Johns Hopkins, was deferred at Penn, and have not heard back at all from Harvard or Columbia. Granted, I know that these are all top-notch schools, and I would never expect to receive positive news from all of them. However, I find it incomprehensible that I should have received negative news from all of these schools, considering the strength of my application. And then as I peruse MDapplicants, I see people with significantly lower scores and less impressive applications than mine getting acceptances to these schools, and these applicants are almost all URMs. Okay, so I know that scores don't mean everything, and I'm not going to say a kid with a 39 on the MCAT is much better than one with a 35. But when I see kids with a 30 on the MCAT getting accepted to schools I got waitlisted or rejected at, and the only distinguishing feature about them is that they are a URM, do you know how frustrating that is? I don't care how "unique" or "amazing" your life experiences are, but unless they've cured cancer or mapped the human genome, there is no reason why someone with a 30 should be getting accepted over me. There is a significant difference between a 39 and a 30 on the MCAT, and it's a joke that applicants with scores so much lower than mine are getting interviews and acceptances when I'm getting neither. I have seen URM applicants getting interviews at Harvard and Penn and Johns Hopkins with a 30, 31 on the MCAT and 3.5 GPAs. And then there's me, sitting here with a 39 and 3.9+ from Columbia, getting rejected. Me, getting waitlisted at Robert Wood Johnson and Mount Sinai. Really, Robert Wood Johnson??? Are you s****ing me??? It is called the Medical College Admissions Test for a reason; it's not the be-all, end-all, but what is the point of having an admissions test if you are going to disregard it for certain applicants while holding others to higher standards? I saw an African American applicant's MDapps page; with a 30, she got interviews at Harvard, Yale, and Penn, got waitlisted at Johns Hopkins, and was accepted at Robert Wood. As for me, I haven't heard back from Harvard or Yale, got deferred from Penn, got rejected pre-interview from Johns Hopkins, and was waitlisted at Robert Wood. You know what would happen if I got a 30 on the MCAT? I'd be lucky just to get into any med school and would have absolutely no shot of getting into any top school. But if a URM gets a 30, suddenly all of the top schools are falling over themselves to get that student. What the f***?! I feel so frustrated knowing that all of the effort I put into studying for the MCAT, maintaining a good GPA, and participating in all of my activities means nothing in the grand scheme of things, because it just makes me an average Asian applicant, whereas if I were a URM with the same exact application, I'd have my pick of any med school in the country. The American medical school application system is a joke, and I am so fed up with dealing with all of this bs discrimination against Asians. We're basically getting penalized for being smart and successful, while other groups are getting special treatment.

So there, that's my rant against med schools admissions. Am I frustrated? Yes. Am I bitter? Yes. Am I pissed off? Hell yes. I know that the med school application process is somewhat unpredictable and that I can't expect to get into all of the schools I apply to. But seeing URM applicants with significantly less impressive applications getting into the schools I have already gotten rejected or waitlisted at just makes me want to punch something. I can't wait for this whole application process to be done and over with so that I don't have to deal with anymore of this bs.

Whatever you do academically, please understand this: YOU WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH TO BE A PHYSICIAN. You're a common jerk who will probably never impress anyone. Patients are people, too, and they will all see through you.
[/rant]

Is this a joke? Wow!!! You win the prize for arrogance. My research mentor recently came in laughing about an interviewee from Yale with a 3.8X, 38 or 39 MCAT applicant who he mentally rejected before the interview was over. The guy had the nerve to answer the "What will you do if you don't get in anywhere" question with something like, "Let's be serious. I won't have trouble getting in anywhere."

 

[medactar]

http://www.citymatch.org/UR_tale.php#

start at 7:50 if need be

Dr. Jones, MD, PhD, MPH: CDC Research Director, Social Determinants of Health

General comment: When debating an issue, please be more knowledgeable than "I just don't like it". This response is short-sighted and limited.

 

[riverjib]

I realize I'm just another irritated person who is bumping up this loser's thread, but I just wanted to say this to anyone who is wasting precious moments of your life on this jerk: don't bother. He already got into medical school. Losers like this inevitably worm their way into the profession. Our job is to protect patients from exactly this kind of physician.

 

[dokein]

I realize I'm just another irritated person who is bumping up this loser's thread, but I just wanted to say this to anyone who is wasting precious moments of your life on this jerk: don't bother. He already got into medical school. Losers like this inevitably worm their way into the profession. Our job is to protect patients from exactly this kind of physician.

Dude, no offense but nobody has been responding directly to the OP for like the last 7-8 pages, it's all an internal debate on other points.

 

[7starmantis]

I hate myself for responding.

[My answers]

I'm just emotional. Rude comments and personal attacks. Red Herring anyone? Tastes great with straw men!

You seem to be missing the point of our disagreement. When is the "playing field equal" exactly? How can that be quantified exactly? Life is simply not fair or equal between individuals or social groups. To try and make it so is asinine. We can address inequalities in education, available experiences, etc. But life simply doesn't conform to our standards and you can't hold "the big bad government" responsible for everything. Putting money into teachers for impoverished areas is good, making pass rates be equal for all peoples is counterproductive. Just an example.

Justice should be extended to people who have been differentially oppressed by government policies. The justice should be from government policies

This is our core disagreement. First, you overestimate the involvement of "government policies" in a lot of your touted "oppression" throughout history. It wasn't "government policy" that allowed people to be hung up and burned, or "pox blankets" given to NA's. Second, you believe (for what reason I can't tell) that federal government policies will somehow repay for other governmental policies. Thats wishful thinking at best. You obviously have more faith and trust in the federal government than I do (even with your rant against their racist policies....doesn't make sense to me).

Who quantifies and peer reviews these decisions? [I do and have provided them in these discussions].

This is normally what it boils down to. Your are simply not the authority on racism, or governmental policy that I want making those decisions, sorry, no offense. I understand that you think your ideas should be policy for all, but thats why you need to be elected

Sure play the "change what I said game" and talk about Slavery and Jim Crow (seriously?). You used an example of a car accident and then when I responded you tried to change it to "racist policies" Honest discussion...wut?

Bottom line is you believe there are racist policies in play and think we should create policies that are opposite (but in definition would also be racist). Policy has never been the answer and never will be. Again, a core disagreement. Why not just leave it at that. If we spent as much time out helping those who are disadvantaged (regardless of skin color) as we do ranting that the "government" should serve justice with policy, things might actually change. As long as we address a specific racial group differently than other racial groups we still have inequality. What is often touted as "equality" in these kinds of discussions turns out to be nothing at all like equality. At some point we all have to understand that bad things happened in the past (maybe gladiators bring a class action suit against Roe?) and bad people do exist. To shine light on their ideas and wrong actions is simply not the answer in my book. At some point we must all learn to enjoy our differences and celebrate them. Ignoring race is stupid, how boring would the world be if we all looked the same? Sadly, I think trying to force federal policy for one racial group creates more racial stereotypes, and jealousy or resentment than helps.

Agree to disagree and let this god-forsaken thread die?

 

[thamsenman]

"If there were policies that led to that, then there should be policies to fix it."

I guess I respectfully disagree with this premise. If I kill your wife, it does not give you the right to kill my brother to mend your feelings of emptiness, guilt, and anger.

But whatever. You failed to address my concerns about your new policy inadvertently marginalizing other groups, regardless of whether or not you think such policy is deserved. If Asian Americans were not harmed by US government policy according to your own words, why are they harmed by it now? Why do you fail to see that harm is the better question?

I'm getting tired of constantly responding to this thread. There's plenty of information for anyone reading this thread to make up their own minds.

 

[youngMeddy]

"If there were policies that led to that, then there should be policies to fix it."

I guess I respectfully disagree with this premise. If I kill your wife, it does not give you the right to kill my brother to mend your feelings of emptiness, guilt, and anger.

But whatever. You failed to address my concerns about your new policy inadvertently marginalizing other groups, regardless of whether or not you think such policy is deserved. If Asian Americans were not harmed by US government policy according to your own words, why are they harmed by it now? Why do you fail to see that harm is the better question?

I'm getting tired of constantly responding to this thread. There's plenty of information for anyone reading this thread to make up their own minds.

Your example is extremely ridiculous. But to the same effect. If you kill my wife, son, and sybils, you owe me something. You have effectively wiped out my family and extended family. What you owe me is where we disagree. In my view, you owe me the opportunity costs of my lost. But this is not just a single isolated case. It is a class action lawsuit based on a number of tragedies.

For example, let's say you had a 2nd-line drug that was cheap and you only give to a certain population. Only the "upper class" --defined on a social concept, like idk, race-- gets the 1st-line drug. Turns out that the 2nd-line drug caused brain damage to a number of that certain population that took it. By the logic that another poster posted, which you seem to support, you then say sry and now allow that certain population the to have 1st-line drugs and all is well. You say forget about the brain damage, you should be able to operate at the same level as the upper class. I mean, just became you grew up with parents w/ brain damage does not mean you were at any disadvantage. It is not the govt's fault are responsibility at all...

 

[TaylorMDhopeful]

You seem to be missing the point of our disagreement. When is the "playing field equal" exactly? How can that be quantified exactly? Life is simply not fair or equal between individuals or social groups. To try and make it so is asinine. We can address inequalities in education, available experiences, etc. But life simply doesn't conform to our standards and you can't hold "the big bad government" responsible for everything. Putting money into teachers for impoverished areas is good, making pass rates be equal for all peoples is counterproductive. Just an example.

It would be foolish to say that "equal playing field" could be easily quantified but it would also be foolish to say that "unequal playing field" is very hard to quantify in that same respect. Life isn't always fair, sure, and it doesn't always conform to our standards. But when a group of people were systematically oppressed for hundreds of years and are now trying to make a means for themselves to be equal citizens in many respects you can't turn a blind eye and say that not helping in some way is the best method. There is a great deal of research on how government in many situations still deals with different groups differently in our society (possibly do to the government not actually being representative of the populations that it represents). Yea we should increase the # of teachers, funnel more money into school systems that don't receive it and the like but I don't see bills flying around Congress to do that. 30% of URMs hover around the poverty line while only about 11% of Whites and 14% of Asians. Their lack of resources has effected their education and outcomes so that many URMs never even get to this point of applying to medical school. Politics, allegiances and self-interest is partially the reason why universal health care is still a dream and why schools in poor areas have less resources than those in nice suburbs. Doesn't everyone deserve the right to an equal educational environment. Because still to this day when I go to visit the communities in which I was raised, it is a far cry from it and more so resembles the old "separate but equal" standards. Some adcoms have stated that URM status, disadvantaged status and life story/experience will give you a second look and possibly an interview but once in medical school these people are succeeding even with these disadvantages. These people are not the bottom of the class tettering on the edge of failure and each exam that a person with a 27 MCAT score regardless of race takes in school will be the same as the person with a 38 will take. They both get their degrees and have reached a level of competency that is needed.

This is our core disagreement. First, you overestimate the involvement of "government policies" in a lot of your touted "oppression" throughout history. It wasn't "government policy" that allowed people to be hung up and burned, or "pox blankets" given to NA's. Second, you believe (for what reason I can't tell) that federal government policies will somehow repay for other governmental policies. Thats wishful thinking at best. You obviously have more faith and trust in the federal government than I do (even with your rant against their racist policies....doesn't make sense to me).

I think it is actually you who to some extent underestimates government involvement in making laws, giving aid and helping citizens of their country. We are (were) the richest and most powerful country in the world! We can put billions of dollars towards imaginary wars with little evidence but we can't pay teachers, fix impoverished regions and create more jobs? That seems ridiculous to me. The Tuskegee experiments that let African Americans with syphillis become guinea pigs for disease progression was led by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. American forces gave pox blankets to NAs in their want to remove them and expand West and for some time the American Government turned a blind eye towards racism and racial injustice as people were being hung and killed just because of their skin color by a racist majority in this country. Its not about repaying past sins even though I think there is still a great deal of work to do. It is about the need for diversity, URM representation, more people working with the underserved and creating an environment that is conducive to different perspectives coming together to create ideals that mimic the interests of URMs and ORMs.

Bottom line is you believe there are racist policies in play and think we should create policies that are opposite (but in definition would also be racist). Policy has never been the answer and never will be. Again, a core disagreement. Why not just leave it at that. If we spent as much time out helping those who are disadvantaged (regardless of skin color) as we do ranting that the "government" should serve justice with policy, things might actually change. As long as we address a specific racial group differently than other racial groups we still have inequality. What is often touted as "equality" in these kinds of discussions turns out to be nothing at all like equality. At some point we all have to understand that bad things happened in the past (maybe gladiators bring a class action suit against Roe?) and bad people do exist. To shine light on their ideas and wrong actions is simply not the answer in my book. At some point we must all learn to enjoy our differences and celebrate them. Ignoring race is stupid, how boring would the world be if we all looked the same? Sadly, I think trying to force federal policy for one racial group creates more racial stereotypes, and jealousy or resentment than helps.

Any policies that help one group of people over another of a different background can be considered racist. Anyone can pull the race card on an issue if they see one group being helped more than another. So if AA or its policies were not here would that remove racism? No. As long as there is a such thing as race, there will be racism. There will be people that don't like you, don't want you to succeed and will try to hold you back just because of the color of your skin. These people will come in all forms, kids, other pre-meds, doctors, government officials and people with great amounts of power and money. It would still be perpetuated in many circles and niches of this country, nothing would have changed and minorities (and even middle class White women) would still be fighting for equal wages, voting rights and many other luxuries that we take for granted. It may not seem like equality coming from the other side of the issue but when you have a group of people (or at least a large proportion of them) that without any resolution see the inequality firsthand it would be the opposite. If going by race or other characterisitcs in some instances is wrong then lets do away with scholarships for specific groups and programs for only certain groups. No National Honor Society, no AOA, no fraternities and sororities. Let's not differentiate ourselves from one another, let's stay one monotonous group. Even if we did that there would be no equality. There would be people in slums, groups underrepresented, groups in dire need of help. As an African American male (from a poor background) I have seen firsthand and heard from my great grandparents what happens when a government does nothing to help its constituents, especially if they are not the majority. If we don't use policy to combat problems, then what do we do? Let the problems grow, boil over until it explodes just like the financial crisis. You can't take groups that were ignored and put down by society and government and then once they developed an conscience about their previous transgressions not go help those that you pushed off to the side especially when their groups desperately need the help.

Answers in bold

 

[thamsenman]

Your example is extremely ridiculous. But to the same effect. If you kill my wife, son, and sybils, you owe me something. You have effectively wiped out my family and extended family. What you owe me is where we disagree. In my view, you owe me the opportunity costs of my lost. But this is not just a single isolated case. It is a class action lawsuit based on a number of tragedies.

For example, let's say you had a 2nd-line drug that was cheap and you only give to a certain population. Only the "upper class" --defined on a social concept, like idk, race-- gets the 1st-line drug. Turns out that the 2nd-line drug caused brain damage to a number of that certain population that took it. By the logic that another poster posted, which you seem to support, you then say sry and now allow that certain population the to have 1st-line drugs and all is well. You say forget about the brain damage, you should be able to operate at the same level as the upper class. I mean, just became you grew up with parents w/ brain damage does not mean you were at any disadvantage. It is not the govt's fault are responsibility at all...

Correct, you would have a right on my life, not those of other people who were unfortunate enough to know me. I don't think the policy of correction that you think AA is, does not have collateral consequences and to the disadvantaged people who are subjected to those consequences, it is fundamentally unfair.