My thoughts on the medical school admissions process...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
To answer your question (I didn't read the whole post), I don't think money plays a factor in med school admissions. I am a non-trad that has had to support myself for the last 15 years with no parental support. I didn't take an MCAT class, I bought used books for a couple hundred books. Aside from work and school I still found time to do research and volunteer. Motivation, work ethic and time management are much more important factors than monetary support.

Similar situation, except financially self-supported for 7.5yrs now. No MCAT course for me, as well. Worked 30hrs/wk in college and found time to both volunteer in a lab and shadow for another 10-20hrs/wk. It helps, though, that I had a very encouraging family who supported me in non-financial ways, which turned out to be a lot more helpful in the long-run. Were/(are) we poor? Yes, but the priority has always been education in my family so the environment was pretty darn good. Was it always easy? Nope!

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think socio-economic factors should play a higher role in admissions if only for the MASSIVE amount of distrust there is of physicians from the working class. I am from a working class family and neighborhood and pretty much everyone I have ever came in contact with has a high distrust of professionals, especially lawyers and doctors. If I had a dime for every time I was working with my dad and he or somebody went on a rant about the pharmaceutical industry giving kickbacks to doctors, well this thread would be a moot point as I would be able to pay for all my expenses and all of yours.

As to the larger thread at hand the way I see it, Med Schools need to pick the people more likely to be the best doctors. It is ridiculously unfair, I agree for the reasons OP stated. However med schools dont have a duty to make it fair to everyone. That is where the governments should step in. And for the most part I think they do a good job but state governments should make state schools more affordable and test prep should be optional courses included in tuition. Thankfully the main advantage the wealthy have(superior guidance) is going away with the rise of sites like SDN.

But the most distressful thing is the conflict and hate I see from both sides in this thread, and it is only going to get worse as wealth continues to be concentrated at the top and opportunity for those without connections decline.

You ever fill out a fafsa? School is affordable for everyone. And you don't have to have test prep classes to get a decent score.
 
Let's think about this from another perspective. Let's say you're an underprivileged kid with minimal family support. You work tooth and nail to claw your way to a good university, where you have to make sacrifices to your social life and work like a dog just to keep your grades up and your head above water. You struggle to keep this up while studying for the MCAT, and you rely on FAP and the sweat off your back to just barely afford application fees and interviews.

Success!! You were accepted! Your strong work ethic propels you to a career in a high-paying specialty that suits the lifestyle you always wanted for yourself and your family. Finally, at long last, you can savor the fruits of your labor. Fast forward a generation or so.

Now Jr. is applying to medical school. Is your honest contention that you expect him to enjoy NO benefit over others? In fact, have you not been working your entire life for the SOLE purpose of being able to provide your children with such benefits? What is the point of accumulating wealth in the first place if you cannot use it at least in some way for the benefit of yourself and your offspring? Obviously philanthropy is an important priority and I intend to place a special priority on charitable giving, but at least for me - I want to know I'm working hard so I can provide for my children someday.

How would you feel if someone told you that all the effort you poured into making sure you could provide well for your family was negated? Let's strip away all this nonsense and leave the OP bare for what it really is: a diatribe against capitalism.

OP, you don't want all men to be equal; the bitterness and scorn that drips from your post makes it clear that your main priority is that the wealthy be made low. The problem with this absurd obsession on one particular facet of fortune is that it neglects the multitude of ways in which men and women are unequal. In looks, in cleverness, in motivation, in grace, in courtesy, in size and shape, we are different. It would be impossible to negate any, much less all, of these inequalities.

The only real solution to the problem you pose is to get on board with Karl. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Great philosophy, terrible policy.

Good luck in school and I hope you have a change of heart along the way.
This so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It hasn't. End of story. Smart ideas, foresight, planning, savings, nickel-and-diming, for a brighter future. Resourcefulness and humility. Discipline, commitment, talent. Do you want to say I am "lucky" to posess these qualities? I stand by my word, luck has had nothing to do with my success (relative to others in the United States.) I am a white male, but that is about as far as I will let you take the "luck" argument. I realize that luck prevails, but I will never concede my accomplishments are due to luck.

Best of luck to you, SunsFun.
(See what I did there?)

God forgive me, I can't believe I'm diving into this thread.

I think you vastly underestimate the role of luck in life. Or, some people would call it fate or whatever else.

You get the good pre-med advisor instead of the bad one.

You get randomly assigned the roommate who is selling drugs out of his dorm room.

You find a mentor who matches up well with your goals and communication style.

I believe that I have a lot of innate resources, dedication, and talent. I also believe I have had a couple of phenomenal moments of luck in my life that I could have never planned for or anticipated. Did those bits of luck "make" me? Or "break" me? No, but they certainly contributed to where and who I am today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
You ever fill out a fafsa? School is affordable for everyone. And you don't have to have test prep classes to get a decent score.

I have, but my expected family contribution was a lot higher than reality. I ended up going to a private school that offered a significant scholarship instead of my state school which would have required too much in loans for me to be comfortable with.

Prep classes you are correct are not necessary, but they certainly help for many and I dont think it should be something limited to people with money. Personally I was never interested in prep classes because I dont like the idea of being taught as a class and Id rather focus on my own individual weaknesses, but they are helpful for many people.
 
You ever fill out a fafsa? School is affordable for everyone. And you don't have to have test prep classes to get a decent score.

I think socio-economic factors should play a higher role in admissions if only for the MASSIVE amount of distrust there is of physicians from the working class. I am from a working class family and neighborhood and pretty much everyone I have ever came in contact with has a high distrust of professionals, especially lawyers and doctors. If I had a dime for every time I was working with my dad and he or somebody went on a rant about the pharmaceutical industry giving kickbacks to doctors, well this thread would be a moot point as I would be able to pay for all my expenses and all of yours.

As to the larger thread at hand the way I see it, Med Schools need to pick the people more likely to be the best doctors. It is ridiculously unfair, I agree for the reasons OP stated. However med schools dont have a duty to make it fair to everyone. That is where the governments should step in. And for the most part I think they do a good job but state governments should make state schools more affordable and test prep should be optional courses included in tuition. Thankfully the main advantage the wealthy have(superior guidance) is going away with the rise of sites like SDN.

But the most distressful thing is the conflict and hate I see from both sides in this thread, and it is only going to get worse as wealth continues to be concentrated at the top and opportunity for those without connections decline.

This is a really good idea and some colleges are actually doing it. Beats taking some of the nonsense prerecs. they often make students take.
 
I also like the post that said wealthy people have some disadvantages. The type of person I am, I think I would be a massively depressed failure if I was born to a truly wealthy family.

The way I see it unless you want to go into Private Equity or some other field where connections are very important, you can do anything you want in this country if you are capable and arent homeless. It WILL be a lot harder and A LOT more expensive(in terms of relative wealth) but Im not living life to be the one who dies with the most toys and money at the end so that doesnt bother me.

Dont do anything purely for the money, and your lack of money to start will be less of a barrier.(imo)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a slippery slope. If family wealth is unfair, why isn't innate intelligence or endeavor? I am far more grateful that my parents gave me intelligence and taught me the value of hard work than any money they could have given me.

As to why there are so many med students from wealthy families, I think people are mistaking the causation of the correlation. If your family is wealthy at least one parent had to be fairly intelligent and hard working, traits the parent(s) would surely instill in their kids. If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they would also instill in their child.

Finally, all these future doctors using n=1 as support for their arguments? That doesn't have any statistical power. Someone should take their passion for this subject and do a study. I'll volunteer to be the first participant :)
A lot of NEJM articles tend to have very low n values, just sayin' :).
 
Complain about being middle class, what about the group in the gutter. Definitely harder
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is a slippery slope. If family wealth is unfair, why isn't innate intelligence or endeavor? I am far more grateful that my parents gave me intelligence and taught me the value of hard work than any money they could have given me.

I agree that innate intelligence is "unfair" just like the family you're born into. Just like I stated earlier, if you are quantitatively a better candidate (like most wealthy students), then you should get accepted.

As to why there are so many med students from wealthy families, I think people are mistaking the causation of the correlation. If your family is wealthy at least one parent had to be fairly intelligent and hard working, traits the parent(s) would surely instill in their kids. If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they would also instill in their child.

Agreed; but how do you differentiate between the two? You can't steal a twin from a rich family and give them to a poor family to test out that theory. I speculate that it is both. This is why many poor people still make it, but not as many. It's hard to ignore that one environment is so much better than another though


If I was a parent, and I decided to make more sacrifices when raising my child (whether it be through sacrifices in my time, hard earned money, and the opportunity costs of their use for this purpose -i.e. towards my standard of living), should I or should I not be able to create opportunities and advantages for my children?

But people on this thread aren't suggesting that the wealthy should get penalized for being wealthy. Bottom line is that wealthy families provide the best resources and in turn their kids are usually better candidates quantitatively speaking (and should/do get accepted). That is unfair because poor families cannot "afford to create better candidates." Therefore if you are intelligent and hardworking, you can make it regardless of your SES, it's just harder being poor. I don't think many real solutions have been thrown around besides equalizing educational opportunities for everyone, but that is highly improbable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This thread has inspired me. Tonight will be a double feature of Coming to America and Trading Places.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Entire books have been written about this phenomenon at the undergraduate level. It is a topic well known to us in med admissions. AMCAS appears to be doing something about it by tagging applicants from presumed lower SES households with EO1 and EO2 designations. you can read more about it here: https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Have you by chance read Think & Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill? I am in total agreement with your post. I'm a middle-class white male, no scholarships or advantages have been thrown my way. I do appreciate that I have two parents though.

I haven't, sounds interesting though so thanks for the heads up.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As to why there are so many med students from wealthy families, I think people are mistaking the causation of the correlation. If your family is wealthy at least one parent had to be fairly intelligent and hard working, traits the parent(s) would surely instill in their kids. If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they would also instill in their child.

LMFTFY

As to why there are so many med students from wealthy families, I think people might be mistaking the causation of the correlation. If your family is wealthy, then at least one parent or grandparent or great grandparent, or ..., had to be fairly intelligent and/or hard working. These traits the parent(s), grandparent(s), aunts, uncles, might instill in their kids. If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they might instill in their child, if they have the time. Or they could hire someone to do these things? Or perhaps just make a few phone calls?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they might instill in their child, if they have the time. Or they could hire someone to do these things?

I hope not serious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's great that adcoms are aware of this and they take it into account in one's application. The [great] help that the aamc provides to disadvantaged applicants is very useful to those who get to that point of applying... but one can only wonder how many [disadvantaged] students didn't make it to that point. I am not trying to say that medical schools or the aamc should fix this--it's not their job to do that, this is a systemic problem. However it is a problem that merits attention and should be discussed (as opposed to just say: "life is unfair, suck it up") which is what the aamc and [all?] medical schools (with holistic reviews) have done in order to somewhat remediate this problem.

Entire books have been written about this phenomenon at the undergraduate level. It is a topic well known to us in med admissions. AMCAS appears to be doing something about it by tagging applicants from presumed lower SES households with EO1 and EO2 designations. you can read more about it here: https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf

It is interesting that the majority of posters in this thread have described overcoming many obstacles, being poor, etc. and still managing to make it. This is great and commendable of you and I know that journey personally. However these anecdotes are not representative of what the reality is. A quote from the article that LizzyM posted says: "less than 10 percent of accepted medical students come from the two lowest quintiles of family income compared to more than 75 percent accepted from the upper two quintiles." So these success stories are more of the exception than the rule. This also applies to the blank statement that the majority of accepted med students do not take an MCAT prep course when it fact ~2/3 do (see attachment, question 11).

I'm not really trying to debate anyone, but I simply want to point out that these "underdogs" success stories are misleading of the reality according to the data out there.
 

Attachments

  • msq2011.pdf
    203.4 KB · Views: 2
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I agree that innate intelligence is "unfair" just like the family you're born into. Just like I stated earlier, if you are quantitatively a better candidate (like most wealthy students), then you should get accepted.



Agreed; but how do you differentiate between the two? You can't steal a twin from a rich family and give them to a poor family to test out that theory. I speculate that it is both. This is why many poor people still make it, but not as many. It's hard to ignore that one environment is so much better than another though




But people on this thread aren't suggesting that the wealthy should get penalized for being wealthy. Bottom line is that wealthy families provide the best resources and in turn their kids are usually better candidates quantitatively speaking (and should/do get accepted). That is unfair because poor families cannot "afford to create better candidates." Therefore if you are intelligent and hardworking, you can make it regardless of your SES, it's just harder being poor. I don't think many real solutions have been thrown around besides equalizing educational opportunities for everyone, but that is highly improbable.


This is an amazing story and highly applicable to this discussion:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-prince-switched-at-birth-was-raised-a-pauper
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
LMFTFY

As to why there are so many med students from wealthy families, I think people might be mistaking the causation of the correlation. If your family is wealthy, then at least one parent or grandparent or great grandparent, or ..., had to be fairly intelligent and/or hard working. These traits the parent(s), grandparent(s), aunts, uncles, might instill in their kids. If a parent is a doctor, they probably value service to the greater good, something they might instill in their child, if they have the time. Or they could hire someone to do these things? Or perhaps just make a few phone calls?
And underprivileged parents just have hours and hours of free time in which to raise their kids!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Entire books have been written about this phenomenon at the undergraduate level. It is a topic well known to us in med admissions. AMCAS appears to be doing something about it by tagging applicants from presumed lower SES households with EO1 and EO2 designations. you can read more about it here: https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf
Thank you for posting this. Implicit in the original post is this idea that nobody has every considered the disparities in admissions and sought to rectify them at least in part.

There isn't anything particularly new here
 
Some of y'all need some tequila and chill out
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
To all my "poor" peeps who are reading or ranting in this article who were given two hands and a brain with a side of nothing from birth, getting into medical school is an epic feeling. All it takes is hard work, sacrifice and awareness from a young age (easily said, painfully performed).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
To all my "poor" peeps who are reading or ranting in this article who were given two hands and a brain with a side of nothing from birth, getting into medical school is an epic feeling. All it takes is hard work, sacrifice and awareness from a young age (easily said, painfully performed).

Love this.

Sidebar: Sorry, your username inspired this post:
tumblr_lg62d2igKP1qcfba3o1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is it fair that 50% of the medical students come from the richest 5% of families and the remaining 50% come from the bottom 95% of families?

/frustrated middle class

Edit: left out some words

lol wut? the median income of matriculant's parents is ~100k, which is the definition of middle class. Are you mad that the stats for people claiming SES and URM are lower even though there are less of them applying?

Sorry but middle class students are the majority +pity+
 
Don't fall into the trap of envy over other's fortunate circumstances. Your argument is filled with generalizations and a little bit of a rude taste. Is it fair to punish students who happen to grow up in wealthy family?

>Why is it that the bulk of America's future doctors are rich, spoiled, disconnected people?
All the docs I've encountered/work with are compassionate, down-to-earth people. I'm sure there are rude ones out there, whether they come from a rich or poor background is up for debate, but I'm going to bet it has less to do with whether or not they had good financial support growing up.

>He then offered to put me in touch with on the financial aid officers that the school had hired. I politely refused his offer.
He sounds helpful, yet you refused...

My family income was less than 25k growing up with a family of 4 with a red net income in some years. I had to work full-time in college with full-time status on full loans. I know where you're coming from, but I think it's unhealthy to dwell on why life is unfair. Just make life your bitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
lol wut? the median income of matriculant's parents is ~100k, which is the definition of middle class. Are you mad that the stats for people claiming SES and URM are lower even though there are less of them applying?

Sorry but middle class students are the majority +pity+
Everyone likes to say they're middle class including those making upwards of 300k, but in reality 100k+ by economists' standard is at least upper middle class. Remember, the average household only makes about 40k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Everyone likes to say they're middle class including those making upwards of 300k, but in reality 100k+ by economists' standard is at least upper middle class. Remember, the average household only makes about 40k.
While generally true, it also depends on what you define as "being middle class" and where you live. Not all 40k salaries are created equal nor does the fact that that is the average necessarily define what is or isn't "middle class living."

For example
By one measure, in cities like Houston or Phoenix — places considered by statisticians to be more typical of average United States incomes than New York — a solidly middle-class life can be had for wages that fall between $33,000 and $100,000 a year.

By the same formula — measuring by who sits in the middle of the income spectrum — Manhattan’s middle class exists somewhere between $45,000 and $134,000.

But if you are defining middle class by lifestyle, to accommodate the cost of living in Manhattan, that salary would have to fall between $80,000 and $235,000. This means someone making $70,000 a year in other parts of the country would need to make $166,000 in Manhattan to enjoy the same purchasing power.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/r...dle-class-in-manhattan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
 
While generally true, it also depends on what you define as "being middle class" and where you live. Not all 40k salaries are created equal nor does the fact that that is the average necessarily define what is or isn't "middle class living."

For example

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/r...dle-class-in-manhattan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Talking about wealth can be awkward because people look at richer people who have it better than them and wish for more. Politicians understand this and that's why they talk more about 200k as being some middle class cutoff. However, as this article points out, that would mean 96% of Americans are middle class http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/16/what-is-the-middle-class/ . I get your point that costs of living makes a difference, but I take issue with the idea of including Manhattan in the discussion. The vast majority of people making 100k in Manhattan have the social capital to get out of Manhattan and make their dollar go higher. It's a choice not to because they've determined that no other city is worth living in. I recently read an article in nytimes about a single woman making 150k who did not own her own home and was barely making her living expenses in Manhattan. I could not feel pity for her. Similar jobs could have been had elsewhere. Everything there costs so much because the owners of production know people will pay. The discussion about Manhattan is only useful in as much as people in NYC trying to take action in order to make it a more livable city for the middle class, not to redefine what middle class means in what is essentially an aberration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I disagree with the idea that there are more children of wealth in medical school because wealthy people are more intelligent or motivated than the have-nots.
My family is from pre-Civil Rights era immigrants and in those days, it was legal and acceptable to keep "undesirable" immigrants out of good schools, jobs and neighborhoods. Many of my older family members wanted to move up in the workplace or go to graduate or professional school, but it was near impossible in that situation. I don't think their socioeconomic status means they are dumber or lazier than people who did not face those barriers. This is just one of many examples.

Also, I grew up in an affluent neighborhood and have seen the negative effects of wealth on the motivation and work ethic of children. Yes, some of my friends are from rich families and are hard-working, competent people, but I have also seen rich kids who are aimless, have no ambition and little resourcefulness, because mom and dad will bail them out of anything. I would certainly not want my theoretical future children to worry about money the way I did, but I also would not want them to be spoiled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I had classmates that told people to get them to sign up for a medical mission trip that simply going on a trip was their golden ticket into medical school.


In all honesty, I would think going on a trip without having anything else on your application that is similar (i.e.: peace corps, etc) then it looks superficial. If you're passionate about global health, then show it with other activities. I'm sadden that my classmates either thought it was their golden ticket or were actively trying to mislead other students.


As someone who is coming from a working class family, I do feel this whole process does favor those with money. I was lucky during my younger school years to be accepted by an academic magnet school. Without that opportunity, I would have been in a pretty crappy school and who knows what in my life course would have changed. I learned a lot about hard work and study skills....much of which I've carried with me. Other members of my family did not have that opportunity and ended up dropping out of high school. The advantage of those with money really hit me when I was in my post bac program. I had to scrap by with a job for rent and take out loans to pay my tuition while classmates simply had their parents pick up the bill. These are the same people who had fancy MCAT prep classes. They could focus on their coursework, research opportunities and volunteering positions while I focused on surviving. They didn't have to worry about having money for applications or for interview travel costs. I wish I had that. Even though I feel that I'm at an extreme disadvantage, it didn't stop me from trying. I studied like I was in a boot camp for the MCAT while working two jobs....I got through it. I had to borrow money to get to my interviews.....but I made it. I also think that it made being accepted even sweeter to me. I've had to fight my entire life.....but I made it. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I was pointing out a reality: life is unfair and you sometimes, unfortunately, have to deal with it. I wasn't saying that it was right. Dissatisfaction with unjustness is good, but I just don't think rants are that productive either.

I think you are missing the overall point the OP attempted to make. He was not arguing that medical school applicants from less fortunate social class backgrounds be admitted into medical school based solely off the fact they are less financially capable. However, it is tragic many medical schools do base their admissions decisions off of activities only students from wealthier backgrounds can afford. "Entitlement," you say? It seems many students from wealthier backgrounds feel as though they are entitled to attend medical programs because they have the luxury of being able to afford to participate in activities the less fortunate are unable to. If that is what you meant by "entitlement," I can say I agree.
 
I got into med school largely on my own efforts. My parents paid for some undergrad, but I still left with about 50k in loans. My post-bacc was entirely paid for myself (loans), and I studied on my own for the MCAT with some review books. I dropped an ungodly amount of money into AMCAS and secondaries out of pocket. I would say my family is on the lower end of middle class, but they always provided support when I really needed it. I have no research experiences, but I suspect it had a lot to do with having no science background in a sea of students with degrees in chemistry or some biological science. Ultimately, I was accepted to med school. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little jealous of some of my better monied peers, as greater wealth usually means greater opportunity, but I also didn't feel as if I had a massive relative disadvantage.
 
100K is middle class? Crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I got into med school largely on my own efforts. My parents paid for some undergrad, but I still left with about 50k in loans. My post-bacc was entirely paid for myself (loans), and I studied on my own for the MCAT with some review books. I dropped an ungodly amount of money into AMCAS and secondaries out of pocket. I would say my family is on the lower end of middle class, but they always provided support when I really needed it. I have no research experiences, but I suspect it had a lot to do with having no science background in a sea of students with degrees in chemistry or some biological science. Ultimately, I was accepted to med school. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little jealous of some of my better monied peers, as greater wealth usually means greater opportunity, but I also didn't feel as if I had a massive relative disadvantage.

If your parents paid for undergrad and you had 50K in loans you probably weren't super low in the totem pole of wealth - poor people get massive financial aid. Hence the rest of your childhood/teenage years weren't as restrictive --> better rounded person in general even if kinda poor during post bac. But yes being poor then is also less advantageous than being rich all throughout
 
Talking about wealth can be awkward because people look at richer people who have it better than them and wish for more. Politicians understand this and that's why they talk more about 200k as being some middle class cutoff. However, as this article points out, that would mean 96% of Americans are middle class http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/16/what-is-the-middle-class/ . I get your point that costs of living makes a difference, but I take issue with the idea of including Manhattan in the discussion. The vast majority of people making 100k in Manhattan have the social capital to get out of Manhattan and make their dollar go higher. It's a choice not to because they've determined that no other city is worth living in. I recently read an article in nytimes about a single woman making 150k who did not own her own home and was barely making her living expenses in Manhattan. I could not feel pity for her. Similar jobs could have been had elsewhere. Everything there costs so much because the owners of production know people will pay. The discussion about Manhattan is only useful in as much as people in NYC trying to take action in order to make it a more livable city for the middle class, not to redefine what middle class means in what is essentially an aberration.
My point was that even in places that aren't an aberration there may be differences in what defines "middle class." Is it strictly based on income? If so, is it the middle quintile or the middle 3rd? Is it the ability to buy a house? If so, what size? Are we talking about an individual, a couple, or a family of 4? Are we talking about a place where the public schools are acceptable or where private school tuition is necessary? Especially since we're talking about how it relates to admissions, what about living in areas where you can be exposed to things (medical, cultural, athletic, educational, etc)? And if you have no pity for people choosing to live in high cost areas, does owning a car factor into whether you are middle class? Does it matter what type of car? There is no one definition of what it means to live a middle class lifestyle regardless of whether you're talking about NYC, Boston, or bumble**** Montana.

Does middle class inherently mean between upper and lower class and thus there is a limit to the number of people who can be middle class or is it a certain lifestyle and theoretically everyone could be middle class?
 
If your parents paid for undergrad and you had 50K in loans you probably weren't super low in the totem pole of wealth - poor people get massive financial aid. Hence the rest of your childhood/teenage years weren't as restrictive --> better rounded person in general even if kinda poor during post bac. But yes being poor then is also less advantageous than being rich all throughout


I went to a state school, which was cheap(er) to begin with. A majority of my CoA was funded through loans. I also started out in undergrad over ten years ago when costs were a little bit lower than they are now. IIRC, the CoA for my first year of undergrad was around 13.5k. CoA for my last year was around 18k. I never claimed to be poor, either, but we were certainly nowhere close to being wealthy.
 
What if you feel that having doctor parents/super rich family should put people at a disadvantage?

I mean I had to cold call at least 20 different docs to find a few who would be willing to have me come in and shadow for a day. My friend whose dad is a doctor can just go to her dads colleagues and ask for the best rec letters possible without even shadowing.

Let's not also forget about all of the extra tutoring, help, positive push that those kids get starting as toddlers. They know that they want to be doctors before poor kids see a doctor for a first time in their lives.

Exactly! I could never get homework help at home in any subjects. There were no free tutoring programs at my elementary school. We could not afford private tutoring either. I would get chased by stray dogs on my walk home (I'm not being funny this really happened to me). Sometimes you just have to claw up the mountain into more challenging classes. Stay thirsty ghetto children. Get at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Most interesting thread. All of you who will be doctors are talking about the privileges/responsibilities your children will experience. To those whom much is given, much is expected. That medical school applications reward volunteerism and ECs seems to be a self perpetuating cycle.

The whole college admissions and medical school admissions is skewed toward the well off, but schools do make an attempt to pick off the the truly talented and exceptional from the lower SES. The truly screwed are the just above average from lower SES. The just about average from the well off do well from social connections and exceptional experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
100K is middle class? Crazy.

Don't forget about all those poor families trapped in the manhattan ghetto…

100K is disadvantaged.

235K is middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Friend, the point is that you are painting with a VERY broad brush, and for what you are calling "anecdotes", I counter, as many before me have, that your observation is not specific to medical school admissions - money gives you an advantage in life, certainly. That doesn't mean that people who do not have that advantaged are passed over or even held to the same standard - yes, a certain academic benchmark must be met, but if you are working 3 jobs to put yourself through college, then 3 hours a week of volunteering over two summers may be substantial enough, vs. two unpaid summer research internships for the financially well off students. I stand by my initial commentary - your original post is childish, cry-baby nonsense.

I calls em like I see's em.
Sorry but comparing a rich kids "summer internships" and volunteering to someone working to survive and dealing with all that stress, coming from a background where extra help was not available and no "insider knowledge" existed is joke book laughable and makes you look painfully out of touch. This is the central problem with the upper class controlling who is "admitted" to any field, from finance to medical school, etc. They literally cannot even begin to comprehend how advantaged they are because they live it every day. The small things they take for granted add up to enormous insurmountable advantages. Then they have the nerve to say the working class "gets help" in the admissions process . It is like watching Saving Private Ryan and saying you know what it's like to go to war. It damages the profession of medicine terribly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We are all familiar with the criteria that medical schools use to evaluate prospective students. Students are expected to excel or at least be proficient in each of these areas to be granted an interview. Doing so is supposed to show that you, as a pre-med, are capable of handling the tough coursework that will be thrown at you during medical school. The truth is, while success in the above factors does make for a successful medical student, it also implicitly suggests something else: that the student is well off.

I took an entire summer off to study for the MCAT. I did practically nothing but study from May until the beginning of August, yet I still did not feel ready to take my MCAT in September. I ended up taking another month and a half (from December to January) to study to really ace the MCAT. Additionally, to boost my application, I spent about 4 weeks in total shadowing doctors, and another 10-15 hours a week as an unpaid research assistant throughout the first three years of my college career. Thankfully, I was able to do this because I received a full scholarship to my state school.

I was fortunate enough to gain admission to my medical school of choice very early in the application season; however, many students aren't so lucky. Many students are wait-listed or are rejected point-blank from every school they apply to. Faced with rejection, many students pursue other interests. If I were to not get accepted this cycle, I believe I would join the ranks of students who pursue other interests. Why? While I would like to take a year off to boost my application and retake the MCAT, the truth is, I lack the resources to provide for myself in that gap year.

However, the students who do have the resources to take a gap year fully take advantage of those resources. They spend months doing research (often for free). They spend thousands of dollars on outreach trips abroad. They spend thousands on expensive MCAT review courses. And then, when the reapply in the following cycle, they are accepted. It's been shown that students who take a year off have a substantially higher chance of getting accepted into medical school. This is expected to be the obvious result - if a student has an additional year (that's 25% longer than the average college student who graduates in 4 years) to boost their application - they're bound to at least marginally increase their chances). As a result of this, many of these privileged pre-meds get into medical school.

The question that I ask is this: if those students who did not get accepted from medical school had the resources to go on lavish medical missions in Guatemala or to enroll in expensive Kaplan MCAT preparatory classes, would they have gotten accepted to medical school? How much of a factor did Daddy's money have on a given privileged kid gaining admission?

I believe money plays a tremendous factor. As a recently admitted student, I feel surrounded by students who are sons or daughters of to-do medical professionals, researchers, lawyers, etc. I would go so far as to say that more than half of my future classmates I have met so far come from households with income in the top 5% of society.

For example, I received a phone call from my med school "peer mentor". He was a third year medical student who gave me a call congratulating me on gaining acceptance, and told me that he was here for me had I any questions for him, etc. I asked him questions about the curriculum and the environment, to which he gave excellent and helpful responses. However, the moment I asked him about FAFSA - the free application for federal student aid - he told me frankly that he was "fortunate enough that family could cover the cost of attendance." He then offered to put me in touch with on the financial aid officers that the school had hired. I politely refused his offer. When I probed him about his place of residence, the response was similar. He had no idea about anything - he was living in a $1200/month studio apartment fully paid for by daddy. I knew then that he was in a total state of disconnect. He simply didn't see money the same way as the rest of us did.

There's something wrong with this picture. Isn't America supposed to be a country where upward mobility is encouraged? What exactly does the American dream promise? Why is it that the bulk of America's future doctors are rich, spoiled, disconnected people? How can this generation of people be taught to empathize with and care for those who have nothing when they themselves have unfairly snatched admission by flashing their store-bought resumes to the admissions staff?

As a senior who has been talking to pre-med students for my entire college career, I know the tell-tale signs of a pre-med who isn't going to make it. Do they have to take a part-time job so they can pay the bills? Probably not going to be able to afford the time to work in a research lab for free 10-15 hours a week. Definitely not going be able to afford a KAPLAN test prep course. Can't take classes over the summer because their scholarship doesn't cover it? Probably not going to be able to take all of the classes they need to take to take their MCAT on time (during junior year).

Now, there are the few students who do make it despite coming from a middle-class family. These are often your extremely hard-workers. Other middle-class students are simply lucky. Perhaps they went to a great high school which prepared them well and they were able to secure a scholarship, or a paid internship, etc. And of course, there are hard-working and intelligent students who come from well to-do families who deserve their admission to medical school.

But the majority of applicants are neither extremely hard-working nor extremely intelligent. They are simply your run-of-the-mill applicant. And for those applicants who are struggling to stand out amongst their peers, a lot of cash goes a long way. Ten hours a week of research instead of waiting tables is not only going to make them more competitive, but it's also going to make them smarter and more capable.

Sure, you might say that medical school committees often take note when students are having to support themselves through school and give them extra consideration when making admissions decisions, but the number of students admitted through such means is few and far between. The standard that medical schools set for admission can only be afforded by the children of the top 5-10% of society. If medical schools wanted to truly create an admissions process that is more conscious of socioeconomic barriers, then the medical schools would have already done so. But that is not the priority. So long as the AMA and the medical schools are able to produce capable physicians, they are content.

I didn't write this piece with the hope of inciting a rebellion. I wrote this as a reflective piece based on my personal experience. Next time you hear news of a young student gaining acceptance to medical student on his second, third, or fourth try, I hope you view his story as more than one of perseverance and indomitable spirit. I see that acceptance more as a credit to his parents' success in providing the best opportunities for their child.

Frankly, the mere cost of applying to medical school via AMCAS, and then again for secondary's, is steep enough to amaze me that so many students can afford it. And then consider the interviews! The cost of traveling, staying in hotels, food., etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Sorry but comparing a rich kids "summer internships" and volunteering to someone working to survive and dealing with all that stress, coming from a background where extra help was not available and no "insider knowledge" existed is joke book laughable and makes you look painfully out of touch. This is the central problem with the upper class controlling who is "admitted" to any field, from finance to medical school, etc. They literally cannot even begin to comprehend how advantaged they are because they live it every day. The small things they take for granted add up to enormous insurmountable advantages. Then they have the nerve to say the working class "gets help" in the admissions process . It is like watching Saving Private Ryan and saying you know what it's like to go to war. It damages the profession of medicine terribly.


It's not anyone elses fault if my parents don't help me as much as someone else gets help from theirs. If I don't like it, I can work harder. I don't have a right to demand the system (which ends up being the wealthier guys parents) give me extra credit.
 
It's not anyone elses fault if my parents don't help me as much as someone else gets help from theirs. If I don't like it, I can work harder. I don't have a right to demand the system (which ends up being the wealthier guys parents) give me extra credit.
What?

Ok so you're saying that people from disadvantaged backgrounds have to work much harder than others to even begin to think about getting into medical school. Right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry but comparing a rich kids "summer internships" and volunteering to someone working to survive and dealing with all that stress, coming from a background where extra help was not available and no "insider knowledge" existed is joke book laughable and makes you look painfully out of touch. This is the central problem with the upper class controlling who is "admitted" to any field, from finance to medical school, etc. They literally cannot even begin to comprehend how advantaged they are because they live it every day. The small things they take for granted add up to enormous insurmountable advantages. Then they have the nerve to say the working class "gets help" in the admissions process . It is like watching Saving Private Ryan and saying you know what it's like to go to war. It damages the profession of medicine terribly.

I think you perhaps are not reading what you have quote correctly - you have only corroborated the point I was making.
 
Exactly! I could never get homework help at home in any subjects. There were no free tutoring programs at my elementary school. We could not afford private tutoring either. I would get chased by stray dogs on my walk home (I'm not being funny this really happened to me). Sometimes you just have to claw up the mountain into more challenging classes. Stay thirsty ghetto children. Get at it!

@SunsFun too

This is funny. My PI's daughters were fortunate to "perform research" in his lab every summer and shadow a ton of physicians through his connections. You can cold-call, but I would be lying if I wasn't a bit envious of that...

;)
 
What if you feel that having doctor parents/super rich family should put people at a disadvantage?

I mean I had to cold call at least 20 different docs to find a few who would be willing to have me come in and shadow for a day. My friend whose dad is a doctor can just go to her dads colleagues and ask for the best rec letters possible without even shadowing.

Let's not also forget about all of the extra tutoring, help, positive push that those kids get starting as toddlers. They know that they want to be doctors before poor kids see a doctor for a first time in their lives.

Enough with this wealthy whining crap. Blame your parents for "not" giving you the lifestyle you want.

Seriously guys, man up and start getting things done. Create your own opportunities and stop whining about the born rich kids.
 
Last edited:
Enough with this wealthy whining crap. Blame your parents for "not" giving you the lifestyle you want.

Seriously guys, man up and start getting things done. Create your own opportunities and stop whining about the born rich kids.


I don't believe it's about assigning blame (at least for me), as much as it is trying to discuss a discrepancy in the medical school admissions process. That is, the fact that "...less than 10 percent of accepted medical students come from the two lowest quintiles of family income compared to more than 75 percent accepted from the upper two quintiles" (ref). Another important question to ask of these data is, 'Does the process select for the best physicians or the best candidates?' Should this discrepancy be addressed, would we have better doctors? Not sure, but it's worth looking into the fundamentals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top