My thoughts on the medical school admissions process...

[SunsFun]

Well first of all, we know the current admissions system already does take race and to a lesser extent SES into account, so you have to include them in your list of "favorable factors".

Also, LizzyM posted earlier in this thread that studies have shown that low SES matriculants tend to struggle more and require more resources on the part of the school to be successful, and then agreed with the notion that low SES tends to result in objectively lower-quality applicants. There is a connection between SES and outcome, this shouldn't be a surprise. But medical admissions is neither the time nor the place to address issues such as wealth inequality and limited social mobility. These issues need to be addressed at their roots, without jeopardizing the quality of our medical students/physicians.

I completely get your point here but would disagree with some of the arguments. We can't say "objectively lower-quality applicants". The goal of medical education is to create physicians and not medical students. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that medical students from low SES or URM, even the ones who struggled in school or needed extra support, produce lower quality physicians. As a matter of fact there is some evidence (quoted in this thread) that those physicians are more likely to actually work in the areas of shortage and higher need.

I completely agree with you that we can't just put it in the hands of AAMC to solve deeply seated inequalities that often stem from education and dysfunctional neighborhoods those students come from. But, this mentality is still a little problematic. As a nontraditional student, I spent several years of my life working with kids from underserved communities. When school administration gets blamed for students not doing well they point their fingers on family and neighborhood dynamics (gangs, crime, lack of care for education). The families in turn will blame the problem on something else. Basically, everybody just keeps passing the ball to someone else and claiming that they on tier part are either doing their best or have no ability to effect the situation in general. In my opinion, even though admcoms do not produce large societal change and are often helpless to influence the big picture, they should still do everything possible to improve situation on their end. Only when everyone takes some responsibility for what they actually can do and try their hardest will we see the true improvement.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SunsFun]

They are largely the most well prepared and capable of success at the time of admission. This is not to say that there are many students of lower SES that would have been just as capable if they had spent years in private schools, spent their spare time doing extracurricular activities that foster leadership and decision making, etc, but at the time of admission, many students of lower SES do not have this preparation and are thus often not as well prepared to do well in, and successfully complete, medical school. As was noted by LizzyM (and BlueLabel above), there is research that bears this out. Is there a lot of unharvested potential at the lower end of the SES scale? Certainly. But cultivating such potential requires efforts outside of the medical school admissions process.

Most capable of success as medical students not as physicians. I already addressed this point earlier, but I still believe it is important to emphasize it again.

And I'm saying all this from the point of view of someone that was fairly disadvantaged. Being advantaged provides educational and developmental advantages, leading to a large group of well-educated, well-rounded upper class students. We can't just go about denying them admission because they had advantages in getting to their current level of capability. They are still, quite often, the best candidates for admission. Is it socially just or fair? Not really. But the job of a medical school is not to produce social justice. It is to produce the best physicians to provide care to the citizens of this country. To produce lower quality physicians in the name of socioeconomic justice is doing a disservice both to medicine and to the country as a whole.

It is extremely subjective statement to make that upper class students are the most well-educated and well-rounded. Without going into a debate about the prestige of various colleges, making a generalization like this is completely out of the scope of the arguments made in this thread. Well-rounded is also quite difficult thing to define. Again, let's not conflate "lower quality medical students" (which is a very subjective generalization to make that I personally do not agree with) with lower quality physicians. Unless you have clear evidence to show that low SES and URM applicants create lower quality physicians on some clear objective metric, your argument does not have a foundation.

 

[slopes23]

I completely get your point here but would disagree with some of the arguments. We can't say "objectively lower-quality applicants". The goal of medical education is to create physicians and not medical students. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that medical students from low SES or URM, even the ones who struggled in school or needed extra support, produce lower quality physicians. As a matter of fact there is some evidence (quoted in this thread) that those physicians are more likely to actually work in the areas of shortage and higher need.

I completely agree with you that we can't just put it in the hands of AAMC to solve deeply seated inequalities that often stem from education and dysfunctional neighborhoods those students come from. But, this mentality is still a little problematic. As a nontraditional student, I spent several years of my life working with kids from underserved communities. When school administration gets blamed for students not doing well they point their fingers on family and neighborhood dynamics (gangs, crime, lack of care for education). The families in turn will blame the problem on something else. Basically, everybody just keeps passing the ball to someone else and claiming that they on tier part are either doing their best or have no ability to effect the situation in general. In my opinion, even though admcoms do not produce large societal change and are often helpless to influence the big picture, they should still do everything possible to improve situation on their end. Only when everyone takes some responsibility for what they actually can do and try their hardest will we see the true improvement.

Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point that others have been making time and time again, and if not completely missing the point, you are at best misconstruing them. So let me try and add a bit of clarity to your statement. The two main arguments of your previous post I believe are highlighted and are what I am going to address specifically, as I feel the rest is supporting arguments, or fluff.

Assume you added the budgets of all the medical schools in the country and it came out to a dollar amount X. This dollar amount overall can be divided out by the amount of students enrolled in medical school each year. This would give you the average cost to train a "competent" physician. You concede LizzyM's point that it takes significantly more resources to train someone of lower SES than a regular or higher SES counterpart -- meaning at the time of admission they were less qualified. If there was an overall trend to admitting more low SES students, it would result in a higher cost to train each "competent" physician. A higher cost per student essentially means one of two outcomes. Either, there are less physicians trained overall, which is a disservice to society as there is already a shortage, or each student gets less resources overall during their training, meaning they are not as well trained overall, which is a disservice to physicians & society. Furthermore, as per what LizzyM was saying the correlation of working in rural and low-income areas is more well correlated to race and not SES. As she also pointed to in her post, many low SES candidates could potentially see medicine as a ticket out of that world, and once out they never want to go back. So you are taking two different concepts (SES and Ethnicity) and blending them to mean the same thing, when everyone is pointing out that they are different, and although correlated, URM does not necessarily mean low-SES. And as SES is just starting to play a role in admissions, there is still no data showing what percent of low SES candidates return to serve low-SES communities.

To your second point, what you are missing here is, that not only can they not produce large social change, but it's not their mission to. Their mission is to foster and create the best physicians possible, that go on to serve all the diverse communities we have in this country. By "improving" the situation in the ways you describe, you are in turn creating less qualified, or less physicians (see logic above), and are denying applicants who worked equally as hard but are of higher SES, admission to schools because they don't fit your new profile. To that latter point, you are essentially trading one social injustice for another (and since when is that ever the solution to a problem). Fundamentally your "plan" would reduce the quality and access to care in the country, do nothing to actually change the status quo of social inequality, and add another social inequality that would have to be dealt with.

It is for these reasons that everyone is trying to show you that although it sounds nice in theory, in practice it would not be a realistic means to an end.

Best

 

[SunsFun]

Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point that others have been making time and time again, and if not completely missing the point, you are at best misconstruing them. So let me try and add a bit of clarity to your statement. The two main arguments of your previous post I believe are highlighted and are what I am going to address specifically, as I feel the rest is supporting arguments, or fluff.

Assume you added the budgets of all the medical schools in the country and it came out to a dollar amount X. This dollar amount overall can be divided out by the amount of students enrolled in medical school each year. This would give you the average cost to train a "competent" physician. You concede LizzyM's point that it takes significantly more resources to train someone of lower SES than a regular or higher SES counterpart -- meaning at the time of admission they were less qualified. If there was an overall trend to admitting more low SES students, it would result in a higher cost to train each "competent" physician. A higher cost per student essentially means one of two outcomes. Either, there are less physicians trained overall, which is a disservice to society as there is already a shortage, or each student gets less resources overall during their training, meaning they are not as well trained overall, which is a disservice to physicians & society. Furthermore, as per what LizzyM was saying the correlation of working in rural and low-income areas is more well correlated to race and not SES. As she also pointed to in her post, many low SES candidates could potentially see medicine as a ticket out of that world, and once out they never want to go back. So you are taking two different concepts (SES and Ethnicity) and blending them to mean the same thing, when everyone is pointing out that they are different, and although correlated, URM does not necessarily mean low-SES. And as SES is just starting to play a role in admissions, there is still no data showing what percent of low SES candidates return to serve low-SES communities.

To your second point, what you are missing here is, that not only can they not produce large social change, but it's not their mission to. Their mission is to foster and create the best physicians possible, that go on to serve all the diverse communities we have in this country. By "improving" the situation in the ways you describe, you are in turn creating less qualified, or less physicians (see logic above), and are denying applicants who worked equally as hard but are of higher SES, admission to schools because they don't fit your new profile. To that latter point, you are essentially trading one social injustice for another (and since when is that ever the solution to a problem). Fundamentally your "plan" would reduce the quality and access to care in the country, do nothing to actually change the status quo of social inequality, and add another social inequality that would have to be dealt with.

It is for these reasons that everyone is trying to show you that although it sounds nice in theory, in practice it would not be a realistic means to an end.

Best

Implicit in your first argument is the assumption that providing additional support to low SES students will require significant amount of resources. So far we know that higher percentage of low SES students as well as URM require support services. Assuming that adding more low SES students will increase the overall percentage of students needing these services is reasonable but the impact on the overall cost of medical education may very likely be negligible.

The second argument stating, as I understand it, that it basically is not their job or mission to address societal inequality. The problem here is that it is not anyone's job in particular but a goal of the society in general. This mindset alleviates responsibility from individuals leaving the issue unaddressed. Let me give you more specific example in primary public education, which has been brought up in this thread several times. A teacher has limited resources, especially time. He can spend most of it helping a smaller group of students by tutoring and providing remedial instruction or prepare a larger chunk of class for the SATs. What should he do? Depends on your personal philosophy.

Last point I made provides a great preface for my final thought. Your argument that society is better off when a decision made maximizes the overall arbitrary good that is expected. You essentially believe (as I understand) that it is more efficient to spend the limited resources available on medical education with the maximum efficiency. Offering more services to low SES students takes away resources that could be used more efficiently educating the rest and potentially produced extra physicians. This argument is entirely valid but at its core it is utilitarian. My position is egalitarian. I prioritize leveling the playing field and helping least privileged over the outcome the maximizes the overall quantity of social good produced. Which justice philosophy is right and which one is wrong is outside of the scope of this thread and we might just have to agree to disagree.

Lastly, I fully realize and appreciate the difference between URM students and low SES students. There is certainly more evidence that URM physicians are likely to address issues that have been problematic in our healthcare system. I suspect that a reason for that is a lack of studies focusing on low SES physicians. I may be wrong though. Regardless, we both can agree that more data would be very useful to look at.

 

[sourdoughllama]

We know that URM docs serve populations that are seeking to be cared for by physicians from their own group and you can tell by their faces (and sometimes their names) that they are "one of us". There is nothing to distinguish a non-URM physician who grew up poor from any other physician,, is there?

Furthermore, as per what LizzyM was saying the correlation of working in rural and low-income areas is more well correlated to race and not SES. As she also pointed to in her post, many low SES candidates could potentially see medicine as a ticket out of that world, and once out they never want to go back. So you are taking two different concepts (SES and Ethnicity) and blending them to mean the same thing, when everyone is pointing out that they are different, and although correlated, URM does not necessarily mean low-SES.

Not disagreeing with your arguments, slopes23, but LizzyM's words have been misquoted at least twice in this thread. URMs go back to serve their own demographic, not necessarily rural or low-income areas. I can't believe people don't see a difference here. You even stated in your own arguments:
"So you are taking two different concepts (SES and Ethnicity) and blending them to mean the same thing, when everyone is pointing out that they are different, and although correlated, URM does not necessarily mean low-SES."

 

[slopes23]

Not disagreeing with your arguments, slopes23, but LizzyM's words have been misquoted at least twice in this thread. URMs go back to serve their own demographic, not necessarily rural or low-income areas. I can't believe people don't see a difference here. You even stated in your own arguments:
"So you are taking two different concepts (SES and Ethnicity) and blending them to mean the same thing, when everyone is pointing out that they are different, and although correlated, URM does not necessarily mean low-SES."

Where does the average URM demographic live? It's no secret that the majority of low income areas are inhabited by URM. The point to be made is in terms of an applicant. When applying to medical school, although well correlated, URM does not necessarily mean that person grew up low SES. Latino's overall live in significantly lower income areas -- ask me how I know. The average competitive medical school applicant URM, I would argue does not look the same as the average URM which was my understanding of what was being implied. If I misunderstood what LizzyM was saying, or am just wrong regardless, than I apologize, but I believe there is a nuance there that makes a difference.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Where does the average URM demographic live? It's no secret that the majority of low income areas are inhabited by URM. The point to be made is in terms of an applicant. When applying to medical school, although well correlated, URM does not necessarily mean that person grew up low SES. Latino's overall live in significantly lower income areas -- ask me how I know. The average competitive medical school applicant URM, I would argue does not look the same the average URM which was my understanding of what was being implied. If I misunderstood what LizzyM was saying, or am just wrong regardless, than I apologize, but I believe there is a nuance there that makes a difference.

No I agree with you 100% that there is a huge correlation. But that's not what the studies say technically (according to LizzyM), and assuming URM and SES is interchangeable is what you were calling out other people for doing

 

[slopes23]

No I agree with you 100% that there is a huge correlation. But that's not what the studies say technically (according to LizzyM), and assuming URM and SES is interchangeable is what you were calling out other people for doing

I am pivoting on the difference between the average URM medical school applicant, and the likelihood of low SES, vs the average non med school applicant URM and the likelihood of low-SES. This could be misplaced, and possible I am skewing what LizzyM was implying in which case feel free to call me out on it.

 

[acceptmeplease]

Is there anything left of the dead horse to beat?

 

[slopes23]

This is SDN. We beat until there are only individual fibers of muscle. Get with the program.

P.S. - I formally accept you.
P.P.S. - If you have made it this far through the thread, I believe you deserve a laugh. At least, a smile. Enjoy.



Warning: It's completely un-related to anything.

 

[acceptmeplease]

This is SDN. We beat until there are only individual fibers of muscle. Get with the program.

P.S. - I formally accept you.
P.P.S. - If you have made it this far through the thread, I believe you deserve a laugh. At least, a smile. Enjoy.



Warning: It's completely un-related to anything.

Nice.

 

[BlueLabel]

This will be the last big blowout discussion we're all going to be thinking of when we post cat memes and "2/10 would not read troll post again" on the new outrageous and inflammatory thread someone will post next week.

Happy new year everybody!

 

[medschoolmyname]

Let's just say I think the admissions process is a crapshoot. No interview invites not even one after 28 applications. What's killing me is the fact I havent been rejected by most of them. Guess I'll keep waiting and count as my hair slowly falls out.

 

[BecksTriad]

OP I definitely agree with your sentiments. The medical school admissions process blatantly favors those who have money. They can afford better preparation materials for the MCAT, can travel to every interview they are invited to, can pay for all the primary and secondary fees. Applying to medical school can easily cost 10K especially if you have to do it twice (like i did). Thankfully I was able to make it. I wish the process would be more favorable towards those less fortunate than myself.

 

[Mad Jack]

Implicit in your first argument is the assumption that providing additional support to low SES students will require significant amount of resources. So far we know that higher percentage of low SES students as well as URM require support services. Assuming that adding more low SES students will increase the overall percentage of students needing these services is reasonable but the impact on the overall cost of medical education may very likely be negligible.

The second argument stating, as I understand it, that it basically is not their job or mission to address societal inequality. The problem here is that it is not anyone's job in particular but a goal of the society in general. This mindset alleviates responsibility from individuals leaving the issue unaddressed. Let me give you more specific example in primary public education, which has been brought up in this thread several times. A teacher has limited resources, especially time. He can spend most of it helping a smaller group of students by tutoring and providing remedial instruction or prepare a larger chunk of class for the SATs. What should he do? Depends on your personal philosophy.

Last point I made provides a great preface for my final thought. Your argument that society is better off when a decision made maximizes the overall arbitrary good that is expected. You essentially believe (as I understand) that it is more efficient to spend the limited resources available on medical education with the maximum efficiency. Offering more services to low SES students takes away resources that could be used more efficiently educating the rest and potentially produced extra physicians. This argument is entirely valid but at its core it is utilitarian. My position is egalitarian. I prioritize leveling the playing field and helping least privileged over the outcome the maximizes the overall quantity of social good produced. Which justice philosophy is right and which one is wrong is outside of the scope of this thread and we might just have to agree to disagree.

Lastly, I fully realize and appreciate the difference between URM students and low SES students. There is certainly more evidence that URM physicians are likely to address issues that have been problematic in our healthcare system. I suspect that a reason for that is a lack of studies focusing on low SES physicians. I may be wrong though. Regardless, we both can agree that more data would be very useful to look at.

Low SES and URM are correlated but in no way equal. A white person who comes from a trailer park in Nebraska is more likely to GTFO and move to a nice subdivision in a well off area once they obtain a medical degree that holds the chance of financial success than they are to head back to an area with broke people that have no money to pay them and few opportunities for their children. Many URM students a different situation. They have to decide between being an outsider in a wealthy, and probably mostly white, community, or living in an area where they are not an outsider by race but are instead an outsider by virtue of their success. Many choose the latter of the two options.

Another reason URM physicians disproportionately practice in underserved areas is FMGs, who are often required to serve in underserved communities for visa reasons initially. Many end up finding a place in these communities and staying. If you really wanted to help the underserved, FMGs have by far the highest rates of going into primary care in underserved areas and we should therefore offer them more residency opportunities.

I'm a utilitarian. I believe that any attempt to bring about social justice at such a high level in the system will have consequences in both quality and efficiency of the medical education system and the physicians it produces. I believe it is fundamentally unjust to determine who is admitted to medical school via what their parents happened to earn. The best doctors should be picked, regardless of their lineage. If you want other factors for picking doctors, use personality typing coupled with a cognitive exam, as proposed in the NYT piece at the end of my post. But one thing you should keep in mind is that cognitive treats are indicative of research potential, and that by sacrificing people who perform well on cognitive tests for those that performed less well but come from impoverished backgrounds, we could lose medical breakthroughs, new treatments, and people's lives just for that warm fuzzy feeling of social justice. We know the outcome of the current system of picking physicians, and it is quite good. Any massive changes could have seriously negative unintended consequences we cannot yet comprehend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

 

[SunsFun]

Low SES and URM are correlated but in no way equal. A white person who comes from a trailer park in Nebraska is more likely to GTFO and move to a nice subdivision in a well off area once they obtain a medical degree that holds the chance of financial success than they are to head back to an area with broke people that have no money to pay them and few opportunities for their children. Many URM students a different situation. They have to decide between being an outsider in a wealthy, and probably mostly white, community, or living in an area where they are not an outsider by race but are instead an outsider by virtue of their success. Many choose the latter of the two options.

Another reason URM physicians disproportionately practice in underserved areas is FMGs, who are often required to serve in underserved communities for visa reasons initially. Many end up finding a place in these communities and staying. If you really wanted to help the underserved, FMGs have by far the highest rates of going into primary care in underserved areas and we should therefore offer them more residency opportunities.

I'm a utilitarian. I believe that any attempt to bring about social justice at such a high level in the system will have consequences in both quality and efficiency of the medical education system and the physicians it produces. I believe it is fundamentally unjust to determine who is admitted to medical school via what their parents happened to earn. The best doctors should be picked, regardless of their lineage. If you want other factors for picking doctors, use personality typing coupled with a cognitive exam, as proposed in the NYT piece at the end of my post. But one thing you should keep in mind is that cognitive treats are indicative of research potential, and that by sacrificing people who perform well on cognitive tests for those that performed less well but come from impoverished backgrounds, we could lose medical breakthroughs, new treatments, and people's lives just for that warm fuzzy feeling of social justice. We know the outcome of the current system of picking physicians, and it is quite good. Any massive changes could have seriously negative unintended consequences we cannot yet comprehend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html[/

Aside from FMGs, which I am not really familiar with, I feel like the comment you quoted is a good reply to this post. Can't really think of a better way to put it.

 

[Mad Jack]

Aside from FMGs, which I am not really familiar with, I feel like the comment you quotes is a good reply to this post. Can't really think of a better way to put it.

[/quote]
Yep, we're in the circle of restating or same points if we go any further. We understand each other's opinions but disagree, nothing wrong with that. My post was more for the lurkers. I don't want people jumping on the social justice feel train without understanding that there is a very real chance it might harm medical care and society as a whole.

 

[TheLadyVanishes]

Low SES and URM are correlated but in no way equal. A white person who comes from a trailer park in Nebraska is more likely to GTFO and move to a nice subdivision in a well off area once they obtain a medical degree that holds the chance of financial success than they are to head back to an area with broke people that have no money to pay them and few opportunities for their children. Many URM students a different situation. They have to decide between being an outsider in a wealthy, and probably mostly white, community, or living in an area where they are not an outsider by race but are instead an outsider by virtue of their success. Many choose the latter of the two options.

Another reason URM physicians disproportionately practice in underserved areas is FMGs, who are often required to serve in underserved communities for visa reasons initially. Many end up finding a place in these communities and staying. If you really wanted to help the underserved, FMGs have by far the highest rates of going into primary care in underserved areas and we should therefore offer them more residency opportunities.

I'm a utilitarian. I believe that any attempt to bring about social justice at such a high level in the system will have consequences in both quality and efficiency of the medical education system and the physicians it produces. I believe it is fundamentally unjust to determine who is admitted to medical school via what their parents happened to earn. The best doctors should be picked, regardless of their lineage. If you want other factors for picking doctors, use personality typing coupled with a cognitive exam, as proposed in the NYT piece at the end of my post. But one thing you should keep in mind is that cognitive treats are indicative of research potential, and that by sacrificing people who perform well on cognitive tests for those that performed less well but come from impoverished backgrounds, we could lose medical breakthroughs, new treatments, and people's lives just for that warm fuzzy feeling of social justice. We know the outcome of the current system of picking physicians, and it is quite good. Any massive changes could have seriously negative unintended consequences we cannot yet comprehend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

An adcom could chime in here, but I am guessing that in many cases it is not so cut and dried as admitting a rich applicant who has a 35 MCAT and 3.8 GPA versus a poor applicant with a 2.0 GPA and 21 MCAT.

As an example, it might be between A.) rich applicant with at least one physician parent, a 40 MCAT, a 3.8 GPA from an Ivy League college, 100s of shadowing hours and a gap year spent volunteering abroad versus B.) poor/lower middle class* applicant with a 32 MCAT, a 3.7 GPA from their state university, 50 hours of shadowing, working all years of college and a gap year spent working as a research tech. I would argue that applicant B is over the bar of competence and that some of applicant A's advantages could be due to their SES.

*EO-1 must be a huge category, as I mentioned upthread. I was EO-1 by AMCAS, but my family was never poor as in being in subsidized housing or having our utilities turned off.

 

[medschoolmyname]

OP I definitely agree with your sentiments. The medical school admissions process blatantly favors those who have money. They can afford better preparation materials for the MCAT, can travel to every interview they are invited to, can pay for all the primary and secondary fees. Applying to medical school can easily cost 10K especially if you have to do it twice (like i did). Thankfully I was able to make it. I wish the process would be more favorable towards those less fortunate than myself.

just to let ppl know you could be middle class, udoubtly we do have some what of an advantage, but my parents didn't give me a free pass on everything. I had to get a job and pay a portion of my tuition, bills of the house, pay for groceries, etc. I will admit that I in no way had it harder than those who had to provide themselves with everything, but not all people who come from rich backgrounds have it easy in this process. I speak from my experience for this cycle because even though I have a greater appreciation for those who are less fortunate than myself it doesn't erase my background and as the poster above me mentioned what I have been able to achieve is looked at with a much tighter scope than others.

 

[scarletgirl777]

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?

I know it's late, but I just wanted to say that the idea that owning a car is required to be middle class is a totally suburban concept. If you live and work in Manhattan, you do not need a car. And are you really trying to argue that if your car is not a type that's "good enough," then you can't be middle clas?. I don't own a car because I don't need one and will try not to own one for several years, but yes as a single person on a resident's salary I would say that does not disqualify me from being "middle class."

I think being middle class means having full confidence that you have the ability to comfortably provide the essentials for you and your family well into the foreseeable future--namely quality food, clothing, and shelter. So yes, if you choose to live in a high cost place when you clearly have other choices (and I understand that there are people who don't have other choices but I can't imagine that if you're making 100k), and it is the high cost that is making financial security for you and your family impossible, well yes you are still middle class. Saying you're not middle class because you can't afford a 3000k apartment when there's an equally suitable apartment for 1000k less, it's just in a less "cool" neighborhood (because that is what it means to live in Manhattan instead of another borough or the suburbs), is like saying I'm not middle class because there's a certain number of designer bags that I need to own for optimal happiness.

 

[MSTPlease]

I know it's late, but I just wanted to say that the idea that owning a car is required to be middle class is a totally suburban concept. If you live and work in Manhattan, you do not need a car. And are you really trying to argue that if your car is not a type that's "good enough," then you can't be middle clas?. I don't own a car because I don't need one and will try not to own one for several years, but yes as a single person on a resident's salary I would say that does not disqualify me from being "middle class."

I think being middle class means having full confidence that you have the ability to comfortably provide the essentials for you and your family well into the foreseeable future--namely quality food, clothing, and shelter. So yes, if you choose to live in a high cost place when you clearly have other choices (and I understand that there are people who don't have other choices but I can't imagine that if you're making 100k), and it is the high cost that is making financial security for you and your family impossible, well yes you are still middle class. Saying you're not middle class because you can't afford a 3000k apartment when there's an equally suitable apartment for 1000k less, it's just in a less "cool" neighborhood (because that is what it means to live in Manhattan instead of another borough or the suburbs), is like saying I'm not middle class because there's a certain number of designer bags that I need to own for optimal happiness.

Thank you for clarifying that vacations, college tuitions, health insurance, life insurance, computers, cell phones and such are luxuries the middle class is simply whining about not having.

With regard to the car questions, you completely missed the point. Obviously if you live in a major metropolis with a good public transit system you don't need a car (and again, these types of areas are generally more expensive), but that describes the vast minority of the country. What I meant by a good enough car is not ferrari vs. toyota but do you have to be able to afford a new one? To own vs. lease? What about one that seats 4 people? What about one that has 4 wheel drive if you live in a cold weather climate? What kind of auto insurance should you be able to afford? You already made it clear though that cars are luxury items not needed by the middle class.

We obviously have very different definitions of what it means to be middle class, and that has nothing to do with discussing living in NYC. All I was trying to say is that I don't think we have a set definition of what it means to be middle class in this country and that simply saying "people who make between X and Y are middle class" might not be the best definition.

 

[KnuxNole]

Thank you for clarifying that vacations, college tuitions, health insurance, life insurance, computers, cell phones and such are luxuries the middle class is simply whining about not having.

With regard to the car questions, you completely missed the point. Obviously if you live in a major metropolis with a good public transit system you don't need a car, but that describes the vast minority of the country. What I meant by a good enough car is not ferrari vs. toyota but do you have to be able to afford a new one? To own vs. lease? What about one that seats 4 people? What about one that has 4 wheel drive if you live in a cold weather climate? What kind of auto insurance should you be able to afford? You already made it clear though that cars are luxury items not needed by the middle class.

We obviously have very different definitions of what it means to be middle class, and that has nothing to do with discussing living in NYC. All I was trying to say is that I don't think we have a set definition of what it means to be middle class in this country and that simply saying "people who make between X and Y are middle class" might not be the best definition.

Apparently, I met people from NYC who were shocked that in some places, it was required to have a car to go anywhere. :/

 

[scarletgirl777]

Thank you for clarifying that vacations, college tuitions, health insurance, life insurance, computers, cell phones and such are luxuries the middle class is simply whining about not having.

With regard to the car questions, you completely missed the point. Obviously if you live in a major metropolis with a good public transit system you don't need a car (and again, these types of areas are generally more expensive), but that describes the vast minority of the country. What I meant by a good enough car is not ferrari vs. toyota but do you have to be able to afford a new one? To own vs. lease? What about one that seats 4 people? What about one that has 4 wheel drive if you live in a cold weather climate? What kind of auto insurance should you be able to afford? You already made it clear though that cars are luxury items not needed by the middle class.

We obviously have very different definitions of what it means to be middle class, and that has nothing to do with discussing living in NYC. All I was trying to say is that I don't think we have a set definition of what it means to be middle class in this country and that simply saying "people who make between X and Y are middle class" might not be the best definition.

come on, there's no one making 100k who can't afford a cell phone -_- And I think life insurance (and disability insurance) goes along with my comment about knowing you can comfortably provide quality food, shelter and clothing essentially forever. Because if you are necessary for your family's survival you need a backup plan.

I should have added a sentence about needing to provide for the safety and welfare of the family. I think we can include health insurance in that definition. You also need a computer these days if you have any hope that your kids, even young kids, can do their homework and keep up in school and for you yourself to be able to participate fully in society. But I think you know that I'm not advocating that computers are a luxury. Rather, I'm arguing that upper middle class people b1tch too much about how hard they have it and that although I love the New York Times, the reason that article was so widely read is that it caters to that sentiment.

I also was arguing that a car isn't inherently necessary, NOT that it was always unnecessary. Obviously if you live somewhere where you need a car to hold a job or get groceries, you need enough money to get a car so you can meet my definition of middle class. I don't think type of car should matter as long as it can safely and effectively be used the way it needs to be so it can support your family. But again, the places in America where you need a car for that don't require you to make six figures to afford one. They're not going to be places like Manhattan, the focus of the article that YOU brought up.

Clearly I've struck a nerve. I'm sorry if you find my opinions inherently offensive.

 

[MSTPlease]

It's my fault for breaking my rule of not discussing finances. I wasn't trying to point out what people do and don't have, just trying to point out that not all dollars in this country are created equal, so I personally think it's better to talk about the middle class in terms of what a middle class lifestyle is rather than an income range. Honestly, I did think that you meant that anything beyond food, shelter, and clothes since those were the only specifics you mentioned.