New data from the MSAR: % of disadvantaged students matriculated

[thesecretisme123]

The new 2020 MSAR shows the % of matriculants who self-identify as disadvantaged (underserved area/government programs/etc) on AMCAS. Just thought how eye-opening it was looking at these statistics for some of these schools. This is data from 2019, with me cherry picking schools:
Harvard 21%
Hopkins 9%
Penn 6%
NYU 3%
Michigan 15%
U-Washington 21%
Northwestern 6%
UCSF 13%
Cornell 19%
UCLA 38%
USC Keck 14%
UC Davis 56%
UC Riverside 68%
Tulane 11%
Vermont 11%
Penn State 15%


Looks like some schools actively seek disadvantaged students (UCR, UCD, Harvard, U-Washington, UCLA [Drew/Prime is 30% of their class], Cornell) while some schools could care less (Penn, NYU, Hopkins, Northwestern). The irony of NYU doing the free tuition thing so it could recruit disadvantaged folks and get more people into PCP LOL what a complete joke! The disparities are worse than I could have imagined. Any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

The new 2020 MSAR shows the % of matriculants who self-identify as disadvantaged (underserved area/government programs/etc) on AMCAS. Just thought how eye-opening it was looking at these statistics for some of these schools. This is data from 2019, with me cherry picking schools:

Looks like some schools actively seek disadvantaged students (UCR, UCD, Harvard, U-Washington, UCLA [Drew/Prime is 30% of their class], Cornell) while some schools could care less (Penn, NYU, Hopkins, Northwestern). The irony of NYU doing the free tuition thing so it could recruit disadvantaged folks and get more people into PCP LOL what a complete joke! The disparities are worse than I could have imagined. Any thoughts?

Isn't it early to chide NYU? I'd wait until after this cycle (2022 incoming class) to see any change before I attribute the free tuition policy.

 

[marcosma]

I think it's kind of interesting - Penn gives 30 of its admitted students great merit-based full rides, whereas Harvard gives good need-based aid. I think that merit aid often goes to high stat students (who are by and large not disadvantaged students ... so these students aren't getting any need-based aid elsewhere) so classes at Penn and NYU end up getting filled with high stat people whose only good financial offers were from these schools that give good "merit aid" (Penn, NYU). I wonder if that is a good partial explanation for these numbers.

 

[deleted480308]

The new 2020 MSAR shows the % of matriculants who self-identify as disadvantaged (underserved area/government programs/etc) on AMCAS. Just thought how eye-opening it was looking at these statistics for some of these schools. This is data from 2019, with me cherry picking schools:
Harvard 21%
Hopkins 9%
Penn 6%
NYU 3%
Michigan 15%
U-Washington 21%
Northwestern 6%
UCSF 13%
Cornell 19%
UCLA 38%
USC Keck 14%
UC Davis 56%
UC Riverside 68%
Tulane 11%
Vermont 11%
Penn State 15%


Looks like some schools actively seek disadvantaged students (UCR, UCD, Harvard, U-Washington, UCLA [Drew/Prime is 30% of their class], Cornell) while some schools could care less (Penn, NYU, Hopkins, Northwestern). The irony of NYU doing the free tuition thing so it could recruit disadvantaged folks and get more people into PCP LOL what a complete joke! The disparities are worse than I could have imagined. Any thoughts?

you can't tell much about who a school wants with who they end up with, only with who they offer acceptances to (which we never see)

And who cares about the demographics. The schools shouldn't be paying attention to race and income, they should be picking the most qualified students

 

[annalisekeating11]

you can't tell much about who a school wants with who they end up with, only with who they offer acceptances to (which we never see)

And who cares about the demographics. The schools shouldn't be paying attention to race and income, they should be picking the most qualified students

I would have to disagree. Firstly, we should all know that an applicant's statistics do not always reflect their abilities as a student or predict their future competency as a physician ESPECIALLY for those who come from disadvantaged/underrepresented backgrounds. So, the focus of picking "the most qualified students" in GPA/MCAT is not adequate without considering outside factors like race and income. Secondly, the physician demographic has always been dominated by white male upper class individuals. Patient demographics do NOT mirror this. Thats why there's such a push to diversify medicine so that patients can receive the best care from physicians of all background and perspectives.

 

[deleted688779]

They can shower disadvantaged applicants with merit awards (aka tools to lock in an applicant or spot) but nah.

 

[Kardio]

The new 2020 MSAR shows the % of matriculants who self-identify as disadvantaged (underserved area/government programs/etc) on AMCAS. Just thought how eye-opening it was looking at these statistics for some of these schools. This is data from 2019, with me cherry picking schools:
Harvard 21%
Hopkins 9%
Penn 6%
NYU 3%
Michigan 15%
U-Washington 21%
Northwestern 6%
UCSF 13%
Cornell 19%
UCLA 38%
USC Keck 14%
UC Davis 56%
UC Riverside 68%
Tulane 11%
Vermont 11%
Penn State 15%


Looks like some schools actively seek disadvantaged students (UCR, UCD, Harvard, U-Washington, UCLA [Drew/Prime is 30% of their class], Cornell) while some schools could care less (Penn, NYU, Hopkins, Northwestern). The irony of NYU doing the free tuition thing so it could recruit disadvantaged folks and get more people into PCP LOL what a complete joke! The disparities are worse than I could have imagined. Any thoughts?

Disadvantaged status is self reported and very subjective. All this tells me is which school’s student body is more likely to feel sorry for themselves.

Why not broadcast the objective Education/Occupations indicator?

 

[deleted688779]

Disadvantaged status is self reported and very subjective. All this tells me is which school’s student body is more likely to feel sorry for themselves.

Why not broadcast the objective Education/Occupations indicator?

Isn’t it counting applicants who indicated they are disadvantaged on the AMCAS and wrote a paragraph about it?

If those students are accepted, I’d assume their claims are verified to some degree by the admissions committee.

 

[KnightDoc]

They can shower disadvantaged applicants with merit awards (aka tools to lock in an applicant or spot) but nah.

I think pretty much all schools with the means to do this already do it (and, if they are disadvantaged, it's usually need based aid rather than merit). I just think the schools that have lower % disadvantaged are less forgiving when it comes to stats. So, they are showering their disadvantaged acceptees with aid to lock them in, they just have proportionally less of them than the schools that actively look past stats to increase diversity (i.e., Penn and NYU love diversity as much as anyone, but they love their 522 MCAT median more as compared to Harvard or UCLA).

 

[deleted480308]

I would have to disagree. Firstly, we should all know that an applicant's statistics do not always reflect their abilities as a student or predict their future competency as a physician ESPECIALLY for those who come from disadvantaged/underrepresented backgrounds. So, the focus of picking "the most qualified students" in GPA/MCAT is not adequate without considering outside factors like race and income. Secondly, the physician demographic has always been dominated by white male upper class individuals. Patient demographics do NOT mirror this. Thats why there's such a push to diversify medicine so that patients can receive the best care from physicians of all background and perspectives.

I'm not saying it has to be gpa/mcat. It can be significant leadership, volunteerism, other accomplishment or demonstrated skill. Race/gender/lack of income should not be used to discriminate between applicants. And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics.

 

[deleted480308]

If we compare census data and active physician demographics that isn't the case that caucasians are over represented. I'm all for increasing diversity in medicine to ensure that people get culturally sensitive care, but the way to reduce that isn't in caucasian physician percentage, rather in the asian physician percentage as they are severely over represented.

Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018

Figure 18 shows the percentage of active physicians by race/ethnicity.

www.aamc.org

Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

how is it appropriate to discriminate against a race just because they are achieving so much?

 

[deleted480308]

The comment is was responding to was implying that Caucasian physician representation was the issue which statistics disproves. I’m not sure what’s wrong with using data when countering blatantly wrong assumptions. And nowhere did I say they should be “discriminated” against, rather pointing the poster towards the actual data.

When you say

I'm all for increasing diversity in medicine to ensure that people get culturally sensitive care, but the way to reduce that isn't in caucasian physician percentage, rather in the asian physician percentage as they are severely over represented.

it sure SOUNDS like you are advocating to discriminate against asians because how else would you accomplish a blatantly discriminatory goal of reducing their numbers

If you're argument was "it's easier to sell being mad at white guys but you would have to go after asians to make patients match physicians and no one wants that" then I apologize for misunderstanding

 

[Kardio]

Isn’t it counting applicants who indicated they are disadvantaged on the AMCAS and wrote a paragraph about it?

As far as I know, that’s all it counts.

Schools are also told the applicant’s (parental) education and occupation (graded EO1-EO5) and FAP utilization. I’m sure EO1 applicants who utilize FAP are taken more seriously when they self-identify as disadvantaged, but I don’t take the indicator by itself seriously.

 

[deleted688779]

As far as I know, that’s all it counts.

Schools are also told the applicant’s (parental) education and occupation (graded EO1-EO5) and FAP utilization. I’m sure EO1 applicants who utilize FAP are taken more seriously when they self-identify as disadvantaged, but I don’t take the indicator by itself seriously.

I do agree that more data should be made public. (EO1, etc)

 

[hailbate]

I'm not saying it has to be gpa/mcat. It can be significant leadership, volunteerism, other accomplishment or demonstrated skill. Race/gender/lack of income should not be used to discriminate between applicants. And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics.

And how do a lot of applicants gain these significant life experiences and high metrics? It is more difficult for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to have access to these opportunities.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I'm going to agree that self-identification as disadvantaged has its limits. As I don't have access to the MSAR myself, it is important to know how these applicants and matriculants were identified for the purposes of this result. Of course self-identification has its risks, and I agree a better tool would be the parental EO indicator, designed to be a little more objective and that the AAMC has stronger validity as shown in their own research. However, there are some challenges with the parental EO indicator in that it may also not properly capture an applicant's economic situation and disadvantages that may be independently caused.

What we do know is that selection of matriculants is still highly driven by MCAT scores and that socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants -- as indicated by receiving an AAMC FAP waiver -- tend to have lower MCAT scores (Girotti et al., Academic Medicine 2020; Terregino et al., Academic Medicine 2020).

 

[hailbate]

Merit is a huge thing as is representation and I’ll leave it up to those smarter than me to decide ways to ameliorate that situation.

Judging things solely off of merit would only be valid if everyone had the same access to resources and opportunities throughout their life. That is not the case.

 

[deleted480308]

And how do a lot of applicants gain these significant life experiences and high metrics? It is more difficult for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to have access to these opportunities.

I went to a state school and no one was blocking poor students from the premmed advisors and programs

Getting good grades doesn’t cost money. A rich kid might not need a job and can maybe afford a tutor but you can work and get As.

 

[emoweedle]

I think people forget that being disadvantaged forces you to learn skills in different ways. We talk about how it's "harder" to get educational opportunities without actually talking about what that means.

For example, say someone lives without a car in a city without reliable public transportation. Because of this they may have to navigate complicated bus routes that add an extra 1-2 hours to their commute both to school and to volunteering/other ECs. Because of this they would have more extreme time management constraints and would have to develop stronger critical thinking skills when figuring out how to get anywhere.

Or like for shadowing someone with physician parents may know doctors to shadow but a disadvantaged applicant would probably have to have stronger communication skills because they're getting their shadowing through cold calling. Even being able to afford medical care can be an advantage in med school admissions because your family doctor is at least one connection.

I think that disadvantaged applicants often learn the same kind of resilience/empathy/critical thinking skills that other students do through having to live/survive rather than the more traditional routes of volunteering, etc.

I don't know if I'm explaining it correctly but I do genuinely believe there is a type of creativity that you develop growing up poor that is valuable for a medical student to have.

 

[hailbate]

I went to a state school and no one was blocking poor students from the premmed advisors and programs

Getting good grades doesn’t cost money. A rich kid might not need a job and can maybe afford a tutor but you can work and get As.

As someone who has actually taught and worked with undergraduate students, this idea that one just needs to "work hard" to get an "A" is such a lazy way to think about the idea of doing well in college, and an "old-fashioned" (for lack of a better word) way of thinking. There is a reason why kids from private schools and well-funded public schools tend to do better than students who come from rural areas and ****ty public school systems. Simplifying it down to just "working hard" when kids from the former already have a leg up compared to other students coming into college is ignoring so many factors and variables.

To your first point, first of all, premed advisors have been notorious for being horrible at a lot of schools. Second of all, even if they were great everywhere, that doesn't do ANYTHING to level the playing field from people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. You're basically telling someone to compete with people who have a head start in a race, and then expecting them to match their peers.

Of course this is a general trend, not something we can say for every single student. There are a fair number of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds who transition well into college, but it certainly doesnt match the number of students who transition well into college from privileged backgrounds.

 

[deleted480308]

As someone who has actually taught and worked with undergraduate students, this idea that one just needs to "work hard" to get an "A" is such a lazy way to think about the idea of doing well in college, and an "old-fashioned" (for lack of a better word) way of thinking. There is a reason why kids from private schools and well-funded public schools tend to do better than students who come from rural areas and ****ty public school systems. Simplifying it down to just "working hard" when kids from the former already have a leg up compared to other students coming into college is ignoring so many factors and variables.

To your first point, first of all, premed advisors have been notorious for being horrible at a lot of schools. Second of all, even if they were great everywhere, that doesn't do ANYTHING to level the playing field from people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. You're basically telling someone to compete with people who have a head start in a race, and then expecting them to match their peers.

Of course this is a general trend, not something we can say for every single student. There are a fair number of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds who transition well into college, but it certainly doesnt match the number of students who transition well into college from privileged backgrounds.

Nor should it be expected to. We don’t need representational income diversity

 

[marcosma]

I went to a state school and no one was blocking poor students from the premmed advisors and programs

Getting good grades doesn’t cost money. A rich kid might not need a job and can maybe afford a tutor but you can work and get As.

who is this man? is he kidding?

 

[hailbate]

Nor should it be expected to. We don’t need representational income diversity

It's not about hitting some quota on the amount of low income students medical schools accept: it's about accounting it properly within admissions.

 

[Ms. Incognito]

I'm not saying it has to be gpa/mcat. It can be significant leadership, volunteerism, other accomplishment or demonstrated skill. Race/gender/lack of income should not be used to discriminate between applicants. And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics.

Wow, just wow. Where do I begin? My major concern is your very last statement: "...And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics". Yes, it's not 'mandatory' to do so. But the push to humanize and diversify in the field of medicine is necessary. Hence AAMC's efforts to promote cultural awareness and sensitivity through a more heterogeneous doctor population.

Diversifying the physician population is the 'culturally sound' course of action to take in an ever-evolving society like the US. Implicit biases in medicine are inevitable and very real. From race to socioeconomic status. How are we to be the doctors of tomorrow with a monolithic population base? All for the sake of matriculating solely high stat/competitive applicants whose MCAT/GPA/EC/LOR won't even matter to patients years down the line? Remember there's NO correlation between high stats and doctor performance. Your proposal is faulty by the simple fact that we live in a functionalist society where, in this case, applicants don't even start on an even playing field.

It's not a secret that a crucial component of positive patient health outcomes is the doctor-patient relationships themselves. A culturally diverse society would most benefit from a culturally diverse doctor population with differing perspectives, backgrounds, walks of life, etc... It's one thing for a prospective physician to train towards competency in LGBTQI+ related (health) issues and concerns. But it's a whole different ball game when the prospective physician in training IS of the LGBTQI+ community who already understands the nuances, social cues, issues, and concerns of the culture.

With all due respect, your overall tone in your commentary appears to belittle and dismiss the significance of such an important measure in medicine. It's remarks like yours that lead to the already existing stigmas amongst patients like doctors being 'out of touch', when the latter should be establishing trust and confidence in the former. As a disadvantaged prospective physician who is underrepresented in medicine, your prose is truly saddening...

 

[Pluto98]

NYU 3% what an embarrassment smh

 

[gyngyn]

If this conversation cannot remain civil, it will (inevitably) be closed.

 

[deleted480308]

who is this man? is he kidding?

I’m not kiding

It's not about hitting some quota on the amount of low income students medical schools accept: it's about accounting it properly within admissions.

If it’s not about a quota, how do you know when it is accounted for in admissions? What’s the metric of doing it right?

 

[deleted480308]

Wow, just wow. Where do I begin? My major concern is your very last statement: "...And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics". Yes, it's not 'mandatory' to do so. But the push to humanize and diversify in the field of medicine is necessary. Hence AAMC's efforts to promote cultural awareness and sensitivity through a more heterogeneous doctor population.

Diversifying the physician population is the 'culturally sound' course of action to take in an ever-evolving society like the US. Implicit biases in medicine are inevitable and very real. From race to socioeconomic status. How are we to be the doctors of tomorrow with a monolithic population base? All for the sake of matriculating solely high stat/competitive applicants whose MCAT/GPA/EC/LOR won't even matter to patients years down the line? Remember there's NO correlation between high stats and doctor performance. Your proposal is faulty by the simple fact that we live in a functionalist society where, in this case, applicants don't even start on an even playing field.

It's not a secret that a crucial component of positive patient health outcomes is the doctor-patient relationships themselves. A culturally diverse society would most benefit from a culturally diverse doctor population with differing perspectives, backgrounds, walks of life, etc... It's one thing for a prospective physician to train towards competency in LGBTQI+ related (health) issues and concerns. But it's a whole different ball game when the prospective physician in training IS of the LGBTQI+ community who already understands the nuances, social cues, issues, and concerns of the culture.

With all due respect, your overall tone in your commentary appears to belittle and dismiss the significance of such an important measure in medicine. It's remarks like yours that lead to the already existing stigmas amongst patients like doctors being 'out of touch', when the latter should be establishing trust and confidence in the former. As a disadvantaged prospective physician who is underrepresented in medicine, your prose is truly saddening...

I’m going to disagree with the premise that doctors can’t give great care to people outside their income/race/gender demographics. They absolutely can. And having admissions try to discriminate along those lines is inappropriate even if (as has been happening with the most recent largely mcat/gpa meritocracy) we end up with one demographic (right now, asians) outperforming the others.

By all means make a push for some other metric that you think better predicts ability to pass boards and then give good care. I’m all for it. But those metrics shouldn’t be race/gender/sex preference/income

 

[emoweedle]

All I'm saying is that when you're life is full of problems you tend to develop skills that make you a good problem solver. Especially if you end up with a reasonably strong GPA/MCAT/ECs. It really devalues people to only see the skills that can be measured by a multiple choice test.

 

[emoweedle]

Also I think it's pretty silly to say that there is no value in having physicians who have experience managing scarce resources in high stress situations here in March 2020 lol

 

[LizzyM]

EO-1, FAP, and self-identified disadvantage measure different things that are correlated on a population basis but not necessarily present together in an individual applicant. You can have someone whose parents are highly educated (doesn't make the cutoff on EO), and not self-identifying as disadvantaged, but having parents who have acquired disabilities thus making them eligible for FAP due to low income. You can been adopted by grandparents who were not low EO, have a good salary as a military officer (not eligible for FAP) but identify as disadvantaged because you were born to a teen mom and had a tumultuous early childhood as a result. These are not made up... I've seen applicants like this.

Self-identified disadvantage may be getting bigger aid packages at some schools compared to others so when it comes down to it, the students are chosing Harvard over Hopkins, Cornell over Northwestern, etc.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

I’m going to disagree with the premise that doctors can’t give great care to people outside their income/race/gender demographics. They absolutely can. And having admissions try to discriminate along those lines is inappropriate even if (as has been happening with the most recent largely mcat/gpa meritocracy) we end up with one demographic (right now, asians) outperforming the others.

By all means make a push for some other metric that you think better predicts ability to pass boards and then give good care. I’m all for it. But those metrics shouldn’t be race/gender/sex preference/income

People self-segregate after training to work in areas that look like them(at the population level, anecdotes don't count), hence training more urms is necessary to combat this issue. Incentivizing ppl to work in rural communities is an important issue along these lines but a tougher problem to tackle IMO. I don't like the issue of race, but it would be a gross understatement if not a willful denial to claim that there is a metric that couldn't/wouldn't be affected by it in the US or one could come up with one, and this is not for a lack of trying.
Not the most rigorous study but it works: Predictors of Primary Care Physician Practice Location in Underserved Urban and Rural Areas in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review

 

[deleted480308]

People self-segregate after training to work in areas that look like them(at the population level, anecdotes don't count), hence training more urms is necessary to combat this issue. Incentivizing ppl to work in rural communities is an important issue along these lines but a tougher problem to tackle IMO. I don't like the issue of race, but it would be a gross understatement if not a willful denial to claim that there is a metric that couldn't/wouldn't be affected by it in the US or one could come up with one, and this is not for a lack of trying.
Not the most rigorous study but it works: Predictors of Primary Care Physician Practice Location in Underserved Urban and Rural Areas in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review

If your pitch is that we need some centrally planned push to distribute docs geographically (I disagree but we’ll go with the premise) the answer is to pay them (either with loan/scholarship/premiums) to go to those areas. It is not appropriate to racially discriminate to achieve geographic distribution

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

If your pitch is that we need some centrally planned push to distribute docs geographically (I disagree but we’ll go with the premise) the answer is to pay them (either with loan/scholarship/premiums) to go to those areas. It is not appropriate to racially discriminate to achieve geographic distribution

In a perfect world, I would have to agree with you 100% but then again I remembered something.

 

[deleted480308]

In a perfect world, I would have to agree with you 100% but then again I remembered something.

I’ve yet to see an imperfect world get perfect with racial discrimination

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

I’ve yet to see an imperfect world get perfect with racial discrimination

I think you misunderstood what I said.
As a principle, racial discrimination is not correct which I agree with. But understanding that a person's race will affect where they practice(which is an issue that is getting dire) is important to consider for the sake of the vulnerable populations.

 

[deleted480308]

I think you misunderstood what I said.
As a principle, racial discrimination is not correct which I agree with. But understanding that a person's race will affect where they practice(which is an issue that is getting dire) is important to consider for the sake of the vulnerable populations.

As that would be racial discrimination, no...no it’s not

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

As that would be racial discrimination, no...no it’s not

For an idealist like you, it is.

 

[Splenda88]

I went to a state school and no one was blocking poor students from the premmed advisors and programs

Getting good grades doesn’t cost money. A rich kid might not need a job and can maybe afford a tutor but you can work and get As.

We all wish the world was black and white... Unfortunately, it isn't.

I would prefer that they use SES instead of race for med school admission. But we all know academia (aka adcoms) are lazy. Therefore, they use race as a proxy for low SES.

 

[deleted480308]

We all wish the world was black and white... Unfortunately, it isn't.

I would prefer that they use SES instead of race for med school admission. But we all know academia (aka adcoms) are lazy. Therefore, they use race as a proxy for low SES.

Yeah, and when cops do “race as a surrogate marker” we can all admit it’s bad. But if a med school does it, we get a sociology premed trying to say it makes sense

 

[Splenda88]

Yeah, and when cops do “race as a surrogate marker” we can all admit it’s bad. But if a med school does it, we get a sociology premed trying to say it makes sense

Well, I am gonna be honest here. I don't mind cops use surrogate marker or statistics to do their job (I guess I am a bad person)... If you ask bank robbers why do they rob banks... The unanimous answer will be: "That's where the money is."

 

[deleted480308]

dumb ass

Alternatively, you could articulate an opposing view

 

[ThetisAntithesis]

And patient demographics do not need to match physician demographics.

I've seen you on here @sb247 and your stance is always the same so there's no trying to convince you.
I did want to respond that yes it is absolutely necessary thay patient demographics match physician demographics as there have been studies that show improved health outcomes and compliance.
Given the history of medical racism (see: Tuskegee Syphilis study of 1932-1972 and others) I'm sure you can't fault marginalized/minority groups when they say they don't trust doctors, especially those who are not of the same race as them.
So yes, it is important for patients to see themselves in their healthcare provider.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I've seen you on here @sb247 and your stance is always the same so there's no trying to convince you.
I did want to respond that yes it is absolutely necessary thay patient demographics match physician demographics as there have been studies that show improved health outcomes and compliance.
Given the history of medical racism (see: Tuskegee Syphilis study of 1932-1972 and others) I'm sure you can't fault marginalized/minority groups when they say they don't trust doctors, especially those who are not of the same race as them.
So yes, it is important for patients to see themselves in their healthcare provider.

The question then is whether we should adjust the doctor workforce or whether we should attempt to adjust people's response to the workforce we have.

 

[GoSpursGo]

If we’re going to have this same conversation again, let’s please keep things civil.

 

[wamcp]

When you say
it sure SOUNDS like you are advocating to discriminate against asians because how else would you accomplish a blatantly discriminatory goal of reducing their numbers

If you're argument was "it's easier to sell being mad at white guys but you would have to go after asians to make patients match physicians and no one wants that" then I apologize for misunderstanding

This is the problem - everyone goes after race "white, asian" are advantaged vs "black, native americans" are disadvantaged but this should be about "rich" vs "poor"

Yes, applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds will tend to be more "persons of color", but race should not be factored into these decisions. It has to be about how wealthy your family was growing up. It is insanely unfair that whites or asians who grow up in a poor area and in poverty will be discriminated against, but not the wealthy black student who affords 10x better opportunities

 

[KnightDoc]

This is the problem - everyone goes after race "white, asian" are advantaged vs "black, native americans" are disadvantaged but this should be about "rich" vs "poor"

Yes, applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds will tend to be more "persons of color", but race should not be factored into these decisions. It has to be about how wealthy your family was growing up. It is insanely unfair that whites or asians who grow up in a poor area and in poverty will be discriminated against, but not the wealthy black student who affords 10x better opportunities

I'm not sure this is true. My understanding is, that while it is true that high-SES URMs will receive a boost as schools attempt to bring more URMs into medicine, low-SES is also a preference, without regard to race.

So, I honestly don't believe that that white and ORM applicants who were raised in poverty are discriminated against. In fact, I don't think anyone is discriminated against. It's just that people who grew up with fewer resources, or are under represented, receive an admissions boost that over represented groups, or applicants that grew up with educational and resource advantages simply don't need.

 

[johnfree7]

Should you experience a major debilitating illness do you want the most intelligent, most informed, most qualified person in charge of your health plan or someone who rose to their position based on filling a racial quota?

A patient with stage 4 brain cancer deserves the most qualified doctor to provide them with the highest quality of care. These schools are telling that patient they should put their life in the hands of an onc who may have ascended to their position partially based on race and income instead of someone more qualified. Absolutely horrible.

 

[johnfree7]

I would have to disagree. Firstly, we should all know that an applicant's statistics do not always reflect their abilities as a student or predict their future competency as a physician ESPECIALLY for those who come from disadvantaged/underrepresented backgrounds. So, the focus of picking "the most qualified students" in GPA/MCAT is not adequate without considering outside factors like race and income. Secondly, the physician demographic has always been dominated by white male upper class individuals. Patient demographics do NOT mirror this. Thats why there's such a push to diversify medicine so that patients can receive the best care from physicians of all background and perspectives.

Healthcare must be a strict meritocracy to maintain the highest standards. "Race and income" are irrelevant criteria for determining the highest quality applicants. If an upper class white male or anyone has a superior academic background and valid extracurriculars he or she SHOULD be taken 100% of the time over a less qualified minority or socioeconomically disadvantaged applicant. No exceptions.

 

[ArdorAyurveda]

Should you experience a major debilitating illness do you want the most intelligent, most informed, most qualified person in charge of your health plan or someone who rose to their position based on filling a racial quota?

A patient with stage 4 brain cancer deserves the most qualified doctor to provide them with the highest quality of care. These schools are telling that patient they should put their life in the hands of an onc who may have ascended to their position partially based on race and income instead of someone more qualified. Absolutely horrible.

The quality of the doctor is not determined by the sterile standardized assessments.

Let's not kid ourselves that medicine is a meritocracy. Yup, all those medical students in my class with two parents who are physicians have NO experience or inside knowledge of how physicians are chosen and trained.

The attending position that we're all coveting for is not immune to office politics. Even in residency, some people are given spots because they know the PD's secretary's husband from bowling night on Tuesday.

Who you know matters.

Also, low SES whites and Asians do get a boost

Lol