New data from the MSAR: % of disadvantaged students matriculated

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
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?

I'm pretty sure admissions averages are far past showing which applicants are fit for medicine. Where do these qualifications come from? Who is to say that a high MCAT score shows more intelligence, rather than a person who could afford tutoring and dedicated study time? Should someone be punished for having to work instead of volunteer? Or spending time taking care of family instead of doing research?
Based on recent data, if you scored in the average range, your chances of advancing from your first year of medical school to your second year were extremely high—98 percent of students scoring between 510–513 did so. The numbers only dipped slightly, however, for those who scored 10 points lower, with students who entered medical school with MCAT scores between 498–501 progressing to year two at a 94 percent rate.
Looks like even with a 50%tile, you have a good shot of making it through just fine. In that perspective, focusing so much perceived intelligence through scores and grades instead of perseverance in the face of adversity does a disservice to the many people who would still be qualified to become great physicians.

Even later on in the process, we see clerkship grading subjected to potential racial bias. How do we know that super qualified physician you speak of isn't just someone who rode in through the old boy's club?

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
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?
It's a free country. Schools can recruit students at their discretion.
:shrug:
 
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?
Keep in mind that the goal of these programs is to REDUCE disparities.
While there is no magic silver bullet formula to create a student body for each campus that fits its needs/the needs of the nation/the needs of its students, schools tend to attract students like the people that already work there and this tends to weed out those who won't fit in
You can't just open up a statistics book and say ok 17% of the population is Hispanic so I want 17% Hispanic students and 2% African-American students, etc. etc.
While it may be "eye opening" to view these varied stats, I find it rather boring--at least there are different numbers for different universities, eh? That shows that there is no vast conspiracy at large.

Going back to the "eye opening" comment and listing Harvard first, Hopkins second, Penn third, and so on--it makes me think that you are prestige-oriented and have a chip on your shoulder because your stats may not be where you'd like them to be.

As I have posted on this forum before, coming from a disadvantaged background means that you are treated differently ALL THROUGHOUT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE--and not in a good way. Every interaction, every exchange is viewed through the lens of RACE. Would you trade all that for a seat at a top school? I bet you wouldn't.

FYI You opened a can of worms posting about top schools vs. race so here it is :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top