Not mentioning ethnicity on applications - disadvantage?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I'm plenty chill. Of course there's more at play than numbers. That's not what I was addressing in my post.

On that topic, I recall a few pages back, you said some pretty creepy/racist things about Asian students. Is that the "more" that you are referring to? If so, I think you're done here.

That's exactly it. There's nothing creepy or racist about it when it's the truth.

You've got to open your mind.

Members don't see this ad.
 
The way I see it, people are getting their asses handed to them by Chinese kids that study for 8 hours a day, and they're bitter about it.

I'm bitter, sure. I went to UCLA and had to be one of 2 white people in a class of 60 Chinese kids competing for grades. When I finally figured out that I couldn't have a life and had to live on loans by quitting my jobs to study 5 hours+ a day to get a 3.7, I came to the realization I mentioned, above.

All of this aside, being a good medical school applicant isn't about being a grade robot that lives an insular life. And, unfortunately, there are many stereotypes about Asians (Chinese, especially) that are true to life; namely, that they shun anyone that isn't Chinese, that they don't care about undeserved communities, and that they'll do anything for a better grade than you (cheating on labs and homework assignments, kissing up, and so on).

I suspect that these unbecoming stereotypes of Asians are typified during interviews when interviewers ask the Chinese kids their opinions on social issues, what it's like to get their hands dirty in community work, and things of that nature. Interviewers probably see a phony, overly-polite "I care about people" facade creep onto their faces while their eyes tell the true story, glinting with self-centered, unfeeling, hateful disdain for the world outside of their Chinese-only academic bubbles.

Seriously? You are going to paint an entire race with such a broad brush? I'm not the one who needs to open my mind, dude. I maintain that your comments (in bold above) are creepy and racist. Do you even have any Asian friends?

It's easy to make negative generalizations about ANY race or ethnicity. One of the central themes of this thread is: Why is it okay to stereotype Asians, but not other races? Why don't Asians deserve the same respect and fair treatment that other individuals are granted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm an Asian male who graduated from a UC in Southern California. 3.3 GPA/3.1 sGPA with a 31 MCAT. A certain kiss of death right? Someone with my skin color and those stats are most definitely locked out of medical school.

Not true. I'm happy to say that I will be attending an excellent MD school this fall. The school was far more concerned with who I was, my family background considered (not well off by any means), my extracurricular activities, my character as derived from my PS and LORs, and most importantly, how I came across to 10 different people in 10 MMI stations. I won't say that I had a wildly successful cycle, but I've made it. This is also my first cycle.

My point is, it's not as black and white as you think. I know plenty of Asian (and white, black, hispanic) applicants who may have decent numbers, but once they get put on the spot, may not be what the ADCOMs are looking for after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Seriously? You are going to paint an entire race with such a broad brush? I'm not the one who needs to open my mind, dude. I maintain that your comments (in bold above) are creepy and racist. Do you even have any Asian friends?

It's easy to make negative generalizations about ANY race or ethnicity. One of the central themes of this thread is: Why is it okay to stereotype Asians, but not other races? Why don't Asians deserve the same respect and fair treatment that other individuals are granted?

Marinate on what I said, and you'll start agreeing with me sooner than you think. Give me an e-hug?
 
Okay so I've got some down time at work and decided to actually investigate my California idea.

Based on AAMC data on applicants and matriculants, 23% of Asian applicants are California residents, vs. 7.78% of White applicants. The percentage of Asian matriculants from California is 21.9, vs. 7.42% for Whites. The ratios of California matriculants/California applicants for both Whites and Asians are roughly equivalent (0.953 and 0.952, respectively), suggesting that both groups face a slight and equal disadvantage based on residence. If you subtract all California residents, the percentage of White applicants matriculating is still slightly higher (45.42%) than that of Asians (43.77%). So maybe that explains some portion of the discrepancy, but certainly not all of it.

Another bit of relevant data: According to this AAMC document, Asians are slightly more likely than Whites to not be first time applicants (26.72% vs 24.95%). I can't find any data on matriculation rates for reapplicants, but anecdotally it seems to be lower.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Okay so I've got some down time at work and decided to actually investigate my California idea.
Based on AAMC data on applicants and matriculants, 23% of Asian applicants are California residents, vs. 7.78% for White applicants. The percentage of Asian matriculants from California is 21.9, vs. 7.42% for Whites. The ratios of California matriculants/California applicants for both Whites and Asians is roughly equivalent (0.953 and 0.952, respectively), suggesting that both groups face a slight and equal disadvantage based on residence. If you subtract all California residents, the percentage of White applicants matriculating is still slightly higher (45.42%) than that of Asians (43.77%). So maybe that explains some portion of the discrepancy, but certainly not all of it.

Another bit of relevant data: According to this AAMC document, Asians are slightly more likely than Whites to not be first time applicants (26.72% vs 24.95%). I can't find any data on matriculation rates for reapplicants, but anecdotally it seems to be lower.

Thanks for this data, but a big problem with the term "white" is that it includes people of Middle Eastern descent.

That makes this entire thread worthless, pretty much. Do you know how many Persians there are applying to medical school? It's a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks for this data, but a big problem with the term "white" is that it includes people of Middle Eastern descent.

That makes this entire thread worthless, pretty much. Do you know how many Persians there are applying to medical school? It's a lot.

I can't imagine there being enough Persians applying to significantly alter Reckoner's analysis. Do you have a specific number?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I can't imagine there being enough Persians applying to significantly alter Reckoner's analysis. Do you have a specific number?

Before we jump to any conclusions, let's try and answer this, first.

I personally know a lot of Persians applying to medical school.

And no, I don't have the Middle Eastern demographics data to answer your question, but I'm sure that this info is out there.
 
Last edited:
Before we jump to any conclusions, let's try and answer this, first.

And no, I don't have the Middle Eastern demographics data to answer your question, but I'm sure that this info is out there.

Did a search and couldn't find anything.

So MangoPlant, have you decided what you'll do?
I have not yet. I will first wait for my MCAT and see how it is though :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I have not yet. I will first wait for my MCAT and see how it is though :)

If we take LizzyM's word for truth (be better than 60% in your "class" - Black/White/Asian/anonymous/etc...) as an Asian, it will always be best to check the "anonymous race" box. I'd assume that the benefits are only minor though (because really, the large majority of people who choose to leave their race anonymous are going to be Whites and Asians). But it will be a benefit nonetheless...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If we take LizzyM's word for truth (be better than 60% in your "class" - Black/White/Asian/anonymous/etc...) as an Asian, it will always be best to check the "anonymous race" box. I'd assume that the benefits are only minor though (because really, the large majority of people who choose to leave their race anonymous are going to be Whites and Asians). But it will be a benefit nonetheless...

Only problem is if your last name is Kim, Wong, Park, etc...
 
Only problem is if your last name is Kim, Wong, Park, etc...

I doubt that matters as much. If you get invited for an interview (this is probably the bottleneck), they're already VERY strongly considering you. Don't screw up the interview. But yeah... All conjecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Only problem is if your last name is Kim, Wong, Park, etc...

I have a feeling that it would still be better though because when they report their demographics to the accreditation body they will be able to count the applicant as unspecified instead of Asian.
 
Only problem is if your last name is Kim, Wong, Park, etc...

You could always have your name legally changed and then switch it back, but now matter how amusing this would be, it would be an exercise in futility. There are in person interviews. You won't be able to dodge having your ethnicity or race come to the surface if you are going to be accepted.

If it bothers you, mark your race as unspecified, but it won't give you any boost if that's what you're anticipating.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. Both of those people are friends of mine. They are both socially presentable and have no trouble making eye contact (lol). My Asian friend is not an "automaton" and his parents are the opposite of Tiger Parents. Both guys genuinely wanted to be doctors, as far as I could tell. I'll be honest, my mixed race friend did not have the academic or personal qualifications that a non-URM would need for a top school, but he got in anyway. This is despite the fact that he has highly educated parents, and every advantage in life. An Asian with those academic numbers would be lucky to get into their state school. I cannot tell you how many Asian re-applicants I have met on the interview trail.

I have no problem with helping students who are genuinely disadvantaged. Kanye West's son should not be given a boost. The son of black doctors should not be given a boost. A poor URM OR Asian OR White student needs that boost.

Has anyone else been bothered by the fact that Kanye West has a daughter, not a son? haha

Really though, I like the idea of compounding both URM and SES status for use in Affirmative Action. Basically if you are URM you would get a boost, if your low SES you'd get a boost, and if you're low SES and URM you'd get a super boost.

Oh wait, medical schools already have both URM and Disadvantaged student information provided to them - problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It's already evident in undergrad ivy league schools admissions that asian admissions are capped, having magically levelled off to 20%. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine administrators for medical school getting uncomfortable at the fact that a minority is making up an ever-larger portion of the student body.

It's also slightly disturbing what the adcom LizzyM poster earlier that:

" In each year between 2003 and 2011, the immediate college enrollment rate for Asians was higher than the rates for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Between 2003 and 2011, the immediate college enrollment rate for Asian completers*did not measurably change, ranging from 80 to 90 percent."
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=51

*completers = recent HS graduates

80 to 90% of Asian HS graduates go right to college! Asians make up 10% of the population of college students and much more than 10% of the population of medical students. What's your beef?
Yet at some top schools, as many as 40% of medical students are Asian. In 2010, 10% of college students were Asian. Tell me again, how are Asians being disadvantaged?


It shows a clear lack of understanding of the issue here. It's not that there isn't a lack of this one particular demographic in the college, it's that the demographic is required higher entry stats to get into college. I also get a tone of exasperation that perhaps she feels asians already make up a significant portion of the admitted students already.


In my mind there should be two pools of applicants: those who have had a demonstrable hardship in their lives and those who haven't. Maybe it's because of their race, maybe it's because of their SES. It's that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Has anyone else been bothered by the fact that Kanye West has a daughter, not a son? haha

Really though, I like the idea of compounding both URM and SES status for use in Affirmative Action. Basically if you are URM you would get a boost, if your low SES you'd get a boost, and if you're low SES and URM you'd get a super boost.

Oh wait, medical schools already have both URM and Disadvantaged student information provided to them - problem solved.

haha I was just using Kanye as an example of a rich black person.

And there are plenty of poor people that don't apply as "Disadvantaged." My opinion is that SES should be taken into account a lot more than it is and diversity based on SES should also be looked at by the accrediting body.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong (I was never very good with stats :p) but when there is a consistent yearly trend of Asian applicants requiring higher MCAT/GPA points than white applicants, this data should be strong enough to question whether there is a significant factor at play affecting admissions. And to be frank, the idea of a "glass(bamboo) ceiling" for Asian-Americans has been evidenced in numerous other fields. It isn't far-fetched to believe that medicine isn't exempt from that.

See this:
Another problem that asians face, is after they "make it" to med school, the sciences or beyond, they have a glass ceiling: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7430-125a

Across all sectors, Asians in US STEM careers are not reaching leadership positions at the same rate as white people, or even as members of other underrepresented groups2. In academia, just 42% of Asian men are tenured, compared with 58% of white men, 49% of black men and 50% of Hispanic men. Just 21% of Asian women in academia are tenured, the lowest proportion for any ethnicity or gender. They are also least likely to be promoted to full professor.

Another article, despite being over-represented in medicine ( http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759734 ):

There are many Asian Americans in academic departments of surgery in the United States, but only a scant few have achieved the top leadership position of department chair, according to astudy publishedin the March issue of theAnnals of Surgery.

No one is being held to a higher standard. But standards aren't always numeric. 4.0 automatons of any ethnicity are a dime a dozen. I just rejected two of them recently, because I cringe at the idea of these soul-less individuals touching patients.

I'm curious--what do you count as an automaton? No clinical EC's? Bad interview/social skills? No charisma?

Also, I'm convinced that @MDforMee is a troll at this point. In this thread so far, he has made racist comments against Asians, called Hispanics and blacks the "real racists" and consistently given condescendingly meaningless statements when he couldn't refute another's argument.

All of this aside, being a good medical school applicant isn't about being a grade robot that lives an insular life. And, unfortunately, there are many stereotypes about Asians (Chinese, especially) that are true to life; namely, that they shun anyone that isn't Chinese, that they don't care about undeserved communities, and that they'll do anything for a better grade than you (cheating on labs and homework assignments, kissing up, and so on).

I suspect that these unbecoming stereotypes of Asians are typified during interviews when interviewers ask the Chinese kids their opinions on social issues, what it's like to get their hands dirty in community work, and things of that nature. Interviewers probably see a phony, overly-polite "I care about people" facade creep onto their faces while their eyes tell the true story, glinting with self-centered, unfeeling, hateful disdain for the world outside of their Chinese-only academic bubbles.
Actually, I'm right. Deal with it.
You totally missed the point. I'm out of here
You're finding out who the real racists are just by reading this thread, IMO. I'll give you a hint, it ain't white people.

You should realize that a lot of white people are on your side, but that you've been blinded by the "phantom racist boogeyman" (whites) and are too caught up in your own sense of racism because you're a minority in this country.
I wasn't talking about who should get an advantage. I'm talking about the bigger picture.

You see it too, I think.
Chill out.

We're saying that there's more at work than what you're describing.
That's exactly it. There's nothing creepy or racist about it when it's the truth.

You've got to open your mind.
Marinate on what I said, and you'll start agreeing with me sooner than you think. Give me an e-hug?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If our goal is to meet the needs of the US population, having applicants get into a pissing contest about who had the greatest hardship in their life will not bring us closer to our goal.

If we are going to use SES as a big factor in admission, we are going to admit fewer Asians, not more, because the proportion of Asian applicants I've seen who come from homes with highly educated parents who have professional employment is much higher than for any other group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
See this:




I'm curious--what do you count as an automaton? No clinical EC's? Bad interview/social skills? No charisma?
In one of the earlier posts Goro mentioned that some Asian applicants in his experience tend to not look in the eyes. This could be a part of it. Or just awkward people who are unable to hold a basic conversation. I personally have no idea how Asian candidates interview or if there is any difference between them and whites but it is not too far fetched to see how someone from a culture where young people are expected to be more introverted would be slightly worse at interviewing. This is all just a guess though.
 
haha I was just using Kanye as an example of a rich black person.

And there are plenty of poor people that don't apply as "Disadvantaged." My opinion is that SES should be taken into account a lot more than it is and diversity based on SES should also be looked at by the accrediting body.

Why wouldn't they just write the essay? If you qualified for FAP then you should write a Disadvantaged essay. It's like 1000 characters? I don't see why anyone who grew up disadvantaged wouldn't write the esasy.
 
If our goal is to meet the needs of the US population, having applicants get into a pissing contest about who had the greatest hardship in their life will not bring us closer to our goal.

If we are going to use SES as a big factor in admission, we are going to admit fewer Asians, not more, because the proportion of Asian applicants I've seen who come from homes with highly educated parents who have professional employment is much higher than for any other group.

The question still remains, is it right to admit the rich/advantaged URM student over the poor Asian/white student, if they both have equal stats and ECs? Clearly the poor student has overcome much more to attain that level of success. It doesn't seem right to give someone an advantage solely based on RACE, yet I have seen this example play out over and over again in my own life -- the advantaged URM student is nearly always given a boost, despite never having faced any real hardship. Additionally, I would bet that upper-middle class URM students very rarely go back and practice in the inner-city ghettos, even if that's what you would assume based on the color of their skin.
 
The people who never leave campus because they're either always in the library or the lab, trying to perfect academically. They lack social skills, speak in a monotone or to the floor, never make eye contact, and can't talk their way out of a paper bag when you give them a hypothetical about dealing with patients, or real life people problems, like the kind you see on Judge Judy. They're the ones not satisfied with a 33 on the MCAT, and are the kind who usually are in my office whining about why can't their 96 on the anatomy exam be a 97?




I'm curious--what do you count as an automaton? No clinical EC's? Bad interview/social skills? No charisma?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The question still remains, is it right to admit the rich/advantaged URM student over the poor Asian/white student, if they both have equal stats and ECs? Clearly the poor student has overcome much more to attain that level of success. It doesn't seem right to give someone an advantage solely based on RACE, yet I have seen this example play out over and over again in my own life -- the advantaged URM student is nearly always given a boost, despite never having faced any real hardship. Additionally, I would bet that upper-middle class URM students very rarely go back and practice in the inner-city ghettos, even if that's what you would assume based on the color of their skin.
Personally, I don't cut the rich/advantaged URM any slack. If they come from a family where a parent has a professional degree, I expect to see a LizzyM score that is not less than 2 points below my school's average (which is pretty high). I came from a humble background myself and I am a champion of bootstrappers of any race and I always take family background and circumstances into account and explain it, when necessary, as I look at applications and discuss them with adcom members.

Finally, do middle class people of color want to see doctors and other professionals in their communities or should all URM physicians be expected to work in the ghetto? You can't go back to a place you've never been but I think that middle class people of color in Atlanta, Miami and DC, and may other cities would welcome someone from their community and culture as a physician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
oimg



oimg


I've pulled all of my data from Table 25 on the AAMC website.

The Right Vertical axis represents, the per capita ratio of Asian / White applicants where the equation is:
(Asian Applicants in MCAT or GPA Range / Total Asian Applicants) / (White Applicants in MCAT or GPA range / Total White Applicants).
** I will be calling this "The Ratio" whether it's greater than 1 or less than 1.

I'm personally having a hard time interpreting the data, other than the obvious conclusions that:

1. Asians at the lower end of GPA range are applying at a greater than 1 ratio compared to White applicants.
2. In terms of GPA stellar Asian students don't seem to suffer compared to their White peers, but there is a significant gap at the lower end
3. Asians at the higher end of the MCAT range are applying at a greater than 1 ratio when compared to White applicants.
4. In terms of MCAT, Asian admission rates tend to be lower across the board.

I have considered the possibility of dividing Asian admission rates with (the Ratio on the Right Vertical Axis), but I'm not sure that would yield anymore useful information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Personally, I don't cut the rich/advantaged URM any slack. If they come from a family where a parent has a professional degree, I expect to see a LizzyM score that is not less than 2 points below my school's average (which is pretty high). I came from a humble background myself and I am a champion of bootstrappers of any race and I always take family background and circumstances into account and explain it, when necessary, as I look at applications and discuss them with adcom members.

Finally, do middle class people of color want to see doctors and other professionals in their communities or should all URM physicians be expected to work in the ghetto? You can't go back to a place you've never been but I think that middle class people of color in Atlanta, Miami and DC, and may other cities would welcome someone from their community and culture as a physician.


Previously, you and others argued that we need URM physicians because there are pockets in this country that are underserved, primarily URM, and lack accessible primary care. Students from these areas are more likely to return and serve their communities. That argument makes some sense.

However, the bolded argument above is very tenuous. You want to admit URM students so that you can feed into the the middle class American's desire for segregation? By extension, you would want to limit the number of Asian students, since they represent a minority in this country, no? This is cutting VERY close to the Jewish quotas referenced earlier. I work in clinics where doctors of different races treat patients of all different races. I think this is the model we should strive for.

Second, I take exception to your stratification of "community and culture." I have friends who are black, Latino, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and European, among others. I have been to doctors of all different races, and it never once even crossed my mind to choose a doctor based on my own skin color. I consider all of these people part of my community, and my culture -- American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users


Second, I take exception to your stratification of "community and culture." I have friends who are black, Latino, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and European, among others. I have been to doctors of all different races, and it never once even crossed my mind to choose a doctor based on my own skin color. I consider all of these people part of my community, and my culture -- American.

That right there is pretty much the definition of privilege. Congratulations.

If I ever had the opportunity to be treated by an LGBT physician I would take them in a heartbeat. I've been treated by straight doctors my whole life with mostly good results, but being able to see someone and not worry about them judging me or being weirded out by situation or mislabeling my orientation. Wow. That would be amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
That right there is pretty much the definition of privilege. Congratulations.

If I ever had the opportunity to be treated by an LGBT physician I would take them in a heartbeat. I've been treated by straight doctors my whole life with mostly good results, but being able to see someone and not worry about them judging me or being weirded out by situation or mislabeling my orientation. Wow. That would be amazing.

1. how do you know I am straight?

2. More interestingly -- how in god's name do you know the sexuality of your physician? As a professional, this is not something you typically share with patients. I have no idea if my doctor is gay or straight, and I don't care. And I would certainly never ask, nor would I expect him to tell me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Personally, I don't cut the rich/advantaged URM any slack. If they come from a family where a parent has a professional degree, I expect to see a LizzyM score that is not less than 2 points below my school's average (which is pretty high). I came from a humble background myself and I am a champion of bootstrappers of any race and I always take family background and circumstances into account and explain it, when necessary, as I look at applications and discuss them with adcom members.

This is good :thumbup:. Now if only we could make it so that adcoms would quantifiably do this.
 
Where did I say you were straight?

And no its not exactly an opening line but if you have a queer patient they are gonna know anyways. Even if it's a straight patient, if you have a long term relationship with them like many fields do I don't think it would be wrong to share a part of your personal life with them.
 
Where did I say you were straight?

And no its not exactly an opening line but if you have a queer patient they are gonna know anyways. Even if it's a straight patient, if you have a long term relationship with them like many fields do I don't think it would be wrong to share a part of your personal life with them.

How would they know? Do queer patients have some kind of special detector for LGBT docs? lol

Anyway, I am in favor of keeping personal sharing to a bare minimum. What if you mention your spouse, without knowing your patient is recently divorced and upset over it? What if you mention your kids, without knowing your patient has struggled with infertility? What if you mention your recent vacation to a patient who has recently gone bankrupt? There are way too many potential issues.
 
Previously, you and others argued that we need URM physicians because there are pockets in this country that are underserved, primarily URM, and lack accessible primary care. Students from these areas are more likely to return and serve their communities. That argument makes some sense.

However, the bolded argument above is very tenuous. You want to admit URM students so that you can feed into the the middle class American's desire for segregation? By extension, you would want to limit the number of Asian students, since they represent a minority in this country, no? This is cutting VERY close to the Jewish quotas referenced earlier. I work in clinics where doctors of different races treat patients of all different races. I think this is the model we should strive for.

Second, I take exception to your stratification of "community and culture." I have friends who are black, Latino, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and European, among others. I have been to doctors of all different races, and it never once even crossed my mind to choose a doctor based on my own skin color. I consider all of these people part of my community, and my culture -- American.

You ever read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks ? It doesn't matter what social structure is ideal. Sure, we all want a culture where everyone from any race trusts anyone else from another race. The reality is that there is a pretty big "trust gap" between different races in this country, and they all have different reasons for mistrusting other races. The problem is way more complex than it might seem at the surface. Older, poorer African-Americans still have bad flashbacks about unauthorized and ethically dubious medical experiments. Latinos often want physicians that can speak Spanish. No, you taking three years of Spanish in high school and then two semesters in undergrad does not necessarily qualify as speaking spanish.

"BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE RICH SECOND GENERATION LATINOS THAT DONT KNOW SPANISH THEY ARE STILL GETTING--"

Shut up. LizzyM has already established that URMs are viewed in the context of their upbringing and what they can bring to the table.

Finally, about the Jewish quotas. This isn't like the Jewish quotas. Inb4 "but omg there is a clear stagnant percentage of asian students at these institutions, it's totally a quota" argument. Here's why it's not like the Jewish quotas:

The Jewish quotas were secretly enforced by prestigious undergraduate institutions in the midst of an incredibly anti-semitic American culture that preceded the creation of the Jewish state and before the tragedy of the Holocaust that brought the conversation about deliberate Jewish persecution to the national dialogue. In spite of this, Jewish applicants were disproportionately wealthier and more qualified then the rest of the applicant pool and thus seemed to receive a disproportionate number of seats at these institutions; consequently, this might, at first, seem a lot like what's going on now. The difference is that the institutions saw the Jewish population as a tarnish on their shiny, ivy-coiled name. This is not the case with the Asian population.

Here's what this is:

Medical schools serve a purpose. The burden is on the applicant to show how they can best fit this purpose in some mutually beneficial way, not on the medical school to provide a reward for meritocratic success.

In my opinion, applicants should approach undergrad and grad school applications like one would approach getting a job or an internship. When they ask you "Why should we accept you?" you should hear "Why do you want to work for us? Why do you want to represent us?" The answer shouldn't be "I'm really smart, look at these numbers, I love you and I've always wanted to be a doctor." The answer should be "You have this mission, I believe in this mission, I can bring this to the table: life experience, experiences working with the disadvantaged, other languages, experience taking care of people in old age, with special needs. From you I would like medical training perhaps with a focus in X or Y and grounded in a philosophy of Z that matches up with your mission statement."

Admissions are more like relationships than transactions. Of course, it's difficult to maintain this perspective when they become so expensive that students more often feel like "customers" of an institution rather than partners and representatives in its employ. Just like you can't expect a girl to go out with you just because you're nice and did all the right things - hold the door open, buy flowers, score a 45 on your ROMCAT - you can't expect a medical school to accept you just because your stats, while exponentially better than other applicants, are functionally logarithmically better at accomplishing a mission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Now I'm gonna go ahead and say you are straight. Seriously who doesn't know about gaydar?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
It wasn't too long ago in our history that other groups were actively discriminated against, e.g., Jewish quotas, et cetera.
This thread reminds of back in the day -- Harvard used to rely solely on entrance exams in selecting its incoming class. In the 1920s, Jewish students were scoring high on the exams, and bursting in on the ivy league scene. When the Harvard president realized that, he did away with the test, and instead decided to pick and choose top students from American high schools, no test necessary. He argued that this would make admissions more "fair" and more based on "intangible qualities," but really this was sugar-coated racism. I think the same thing continues today.
but I have a strong suspicion that it's no different than the Jewish quotas instituted in the 1920s. In 1919, 40% of Columbia University's students were Jewish. This alarmed the faculty, who claimed they needed a more "diverse" class. Enter the Jewish quotas, which were later declared unconstitutional.
Think about the Jewish quotas. Jews make up about 2% of the US population. In 1919, they made up 40% of the undergraduates at Columbia University. As a result, the school officials instituted the Jewish quota, which declared that no more than 15% of the class could be Jewish. In 1923, the school was 15% Jewish, which is still a fairly large percentage -- does this mean that there was no discrimination against Jews?
This is cutting VERY close to the Jewish quotas referenced earlier.
Hey so do you think this relates to the Jewish quotas of the 20's??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Hey so do you think this relates to the Jewish quotas of the 20's??
Once another URM thread pops up on SDN, I am just going to talk about Jewish quotas of 1920'. Feck it.
 
You ever read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks ? It doesn't matter what social structure is ideal. Sure, we all want a culture where everyone from any race trusts anyone else from another race. The reality is that there is a pretty big "trust gap" between different races in this country, and they all have different reasons for mistrusting other races. The problem is way more complex than it might seem at the surface. Older, poorer African-Americans still have bad flashbacks about unauthorized and ethically dubious medical experiments. Latinos often want physicians that can speak Spanish. No, you taking three years of Spanish in high school and then two semesters in undergrad does not necessarily qualify as speaking spanish.

"BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE RICH SECOND GENERATION LATINOS THAT DONT KNOW SPANISH THEY ARE STILL GETTING--"

Shut up. LizzyM has already established that URMs are viewed in the context of their upbringing and what they can bring to the table.

Finally, about the Jewish quotas. This isn't like the Jewish quotas. Inb4 "but omg there is a clear stagnant percentage of asian students at these institutions, it's totally a quota" argument. Here's why it's not like the Jewish quotas:

The Jewish quotas were secretly enforced by prestigious undergraduate institutions in the midst of an incredibly anti-semitic American culture that preceded the creation of the Jewish state and before the tragedy of the Holocaust that brought the conversation about deliberate Jewish persecution to the national dialogue. In spite of this, Jewish applicants were disproportionately wealthier and more qualified then the rest of the applicant pool and thus seemed to receive a disproportionate number of seats at these institutions; consequently, this might, at first, seem a lot like what's going on now. The difference is that the institutions saw the Jewish population as a tarnish on their shiny, ivy-coiled name. This is not the case with the Asian population.

Here's what this is:

Medical schools serve a purpose. The burden is on the applicant to show how they can best fit this purpose in some mutually beneficial way, not on the medical school to provide a reward for meritocratic success.

In my opinion, applicants should approach undergrad and grad school applications like one would approach getting a job or an internship. When they ask you "Why should we accept you?" you should hear "Why do you want to work for us? Why do you want to represent us?" The answer shouldn't be "I'm really smart, look at these numbers, I love you and I've always wanted to be a doctor." The answer should be "You have this mission, I believe in this mission, I can bring this to the table: life experience, experiences working with the disadvantaged, other languages, experience taking care of people in old age, with special needs. From you I would like medical training perhaps with a focus in X or Y and grounded in a philosophy of Z that matches up with your mission statement."

Admissions are more like relationships than transactions. Of course, it's difficult to maintain this perspective when they become so expensive that students more often feel like "customers" of an institution rather than partners and representatives in its employ. Just like you can't expect a girl to go out with you just because you're nice and did all the right things - hold the door open, buy flowers, score a 45 on your ROMCAT - you can't expect a medical school to accept you just because your stats, while exponentially better than other applicants, are functionally logarithmically better at accomplishing a mission.

So my question to you is, why not have race-blind admissions, at least pre-interview? A student's ability to fulfill a school's mission, and to communicate this to adcoms in primary/secondary essays, IS NOT dependent on skin color!

Nobody writes in their essay, "I'm black/white/asian/latino so therefore you should want me because I fulfill your mission with my skin color." In most cases, race is not even part of the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am a woman and I've been treated by both male and female physicians and by Asian, Black, Latino and White physicians (and even DOs!) . However, I do recognize that some women specifically seek a woman for gynecologic care. Is that wrong... are we encouraging segregation by sex when women want a woman GYN and men prefer male urologists (not that they usually have much choice although more women are going into urology -- although usually to serve the needs of women and children). I don't know why we can accept having the mix of men and women in medical school reflect the US population but we get completely wigged out at the idea that URM should not be URM but should be represented and serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Hey so do you think this relates to the Jewish quotas of the 20's??

The Jewish quotas are not exactly what is happening to Asians right now because they were based on actually limiting the numbers of Jews (placing a maximum on the amount of Jews that could be enrolled) but most people agree that there is a glass ceiling on Asian enrollment (who wants a class of 40% Asian right?) - that is reminiscent of the Jewish quotas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I am a woman and I've been treated by both male and female physicians and by Asian, Black, Latino and White physicians (and even DOs!) . However, I do recognize that some women specifically seek a woman for gynecologic care. Is that wrong... are we encouraging segregation by sex when women want a woman GYN and men prefer male urologists (not that they usually have much choice although more women are going into urology -- although usually to serve the needs of women and children). I don't know why we can accept having the mix of men and women in medical school reflect the US population but we get completely wigged out at the idea that URM should not be URM but should be represented and serving.

The GYN example is slightly different - A woman may be embarrassed to see a male GYN (because of modesty, religious values, other reasons, etc). Similarly a man may be embarrassed to see a female urologist. Would a Latino be embarrassed to see a white doc?
 
So my question to you is, why not have race-blind admissions, at least pre-interview? A student's ability to fulfill a school's mission, and to communicate this to adcoms in primary/secondary essays, IS NOT dependent on skin color!

Nobody writes in their essay, "I'm black/white/asian/latino so therefore you should want me because I fulfill your mission with my skin color." In most cases, race is not even part of the equation.

I specifically addressed the communities that I represent and how they influenced me to go into medicine and how I feel a duty to my community to serve them as a physician. This perfectly aligned with a lot of the medical schools I applied to that had a strong service mission. My culture (not my skin color since I'm one of those weird tri-racial Latinos and we come in all different shades) and my involvement in multiculturalism and social justice DIRECTLY played in to my decision to become a physician.

I also know I'm not alone in addressing my culture in a personal statement.

The GYN example is slightly different - A woman may be embarrassed to see a male GYN (because of modesty, religious values, other reasons, etc). Would a Latino be embarrassed to see a white doc?

Embarrassed? No. Not as comfortable or open? Could be.
 
I am a woman and I've been treated by both male and female physicians and by Asian, Black, Latino and White physicians (and even DOs!) . However, I do recognize that some women specifically seek a woman for gynecologic care. Is that wrong... are we encouraging segregation by sex when women want a woman GYN and men prefer male urologists (not that they usually have much choice although more women are going into urology -- although usually to serve the needs of women and children). I don't know why we can accept having the mix of men and women in medical school reflect the US population but we get completely wigged out at the idea that URM should not be URM but should be represented and serving.

Because the average GPAs and MCATs for male and female applicants are not drastically different. There is no "URM-like" benefit to being a certain gender. It's not like a much higher standard is held for all females, whereas men are routinely accepted with sub-3.5 GPAs and sub-30 MCAT scores. Yes, I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but male and female matriculants have essentially equal (numerical) qualifications, on average. The same cannot be said when you compare other demographics.

Let's say for the sake of argument, males were much worse applicants (numerically), on average, than females. I would NOT be in favor of pro-male affirmative action, even if that would better reflect the demographic of the US population. Essentially, that would penalize females for being hard-working and successful, as a group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Okay so what I'm getting from all this is that everyone agrees that we should increase admittance for those who have been disadvantaged, demonstrated by SES, essays, and race if it relates to that said disadvantage.

What I see is there is a divergent opinion on whether or not Adcoms should further select for races with a lower percentage of peoples represented in the population. The problem with this is that this is a very superficial way to increase diversity based on the available groupings of people.

For instance:
We assume that the percentage of Chinese versus Korean versus Laotians are all overlyrepresented in the asian population. But pretend that was not the case for Loatians and they are vastly underrepresented in medicine. By the argument of LizzyM and others, don't they deserve a higher representation in medical school? How are we serving Loatian Americans if we are not selecting for them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Okay so what I'm getting from all this is that everyone agrees that we should increase admittance for those who have been disadvantaged, demonstrated by SES, essays, and race if it relates to that said disadvantage.

What I see is there is a divergent opinion on whether or not Adcoms should further select for races with a lower percentage of peoples represented in the population. The problem with this is that this is a very superficial way to increase diversity based on the available groupings of people.

For instance:
We assume that the percentage of Chinese versus Korean versus Laotians are all overlyrepresented in the asian population. But pretend that was not the case for Loatians and they are vastly underrepresented in medicine. By the argument of LizzyM and others, don't they deserve a higher representation in medical school? How are we serving Loatian Americans if we are not selecting for them?

There are schools now who have expanded their definition of URM to include Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. I believe UColorado and UWisconsin consider them to be URM at this point. The definition has expanded quite a bit since it was originally implemented and only considered African American, Native American, Mainland Puerto Rican, and Mexican American. Now each school has its own definition of URM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Okay so what I'm getting from all this is that everyone agrees that we should increase admittance for those who have been disadvantaged, demonstrated by SES, essays, and race if it relates to that said disadvantage.

What I see is there is a divergent opinion on whether or not Adcoms should further select for races with a lower percentage of peoples represented in the population. The problem with this is that this is a very superficial way to increase diversity based on the available groupings of people.

For instance:
We assume that the percentage of Chinese versus Korean versus Laotians are all overlyrepresented in the asian population. But pretend that was not the case for Loatians and they are vastly underrepresented in medicine. By the argument of LizzyM and others, don't they deserve a higher representation in medical school? How are we serving Loatian Americans if we are not selecting for them?

This brings up another good point. Why are groups as diverse as Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Laotian all reported as being "Asian" when most of these groups are culturally unique and also physically appear different. An Indian person and a Japanese do not look mildly similar yet they are both classified with the same ethnicity when the statistics are reported.
 
There are schools now who have expanded their definition of URM to include Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. I believe UColorado and UWisconsin consider them to be URM at this point. The definition has expanded quite a bit since it was originally implemented and only considered African American, Native American, Mainland Puerto Rican, and Mexican American. Now each school has its own definition of URM.

You're missing the point. Yes, it's better that some schools have corrected URM statuses for some races. But there's 200 countries out there and, by definition, until they bother to create a percentage for each race out there as compared to medical school admissions, it's not fair for all races.

And I'm not even going to go into multi-race combinations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're missing the point. Yes, it's better that some schools have corrected URM statuses for some races. But there's 200 countries out there and, by definition, until they bother to create a percentage for each race out there as compared to medical school admissions, it's not fair for all races.

And I'm not even going to go into multi-race combinations.

I think that an ethnicity has to reach a critical mass before they begin to be singled out for something like URM status. i.e. No governing body is going to count how many physicians of Bahraini descent there are relative to a small ethnic population. This would be tedious and wouldn't help in improving overall health rates for the whole country. Increasing physicians for an underserved ethnic group such as Mexican Americans which account for more than 34 million people (not counting the additional 7 million undocumented), would have more tangible public health impact than trying to narrow in on very small ethnic groups.

However, if you were from a very small ethnic group and you saw that there was a major lack of physicians in your community, and you wrote about this in your essays and your reasons for going into medicine - I guarantee that Adcoms would be sympathetic and receptive towards it. You wouldn't be "URM" but you'd likely be looked at differently.
 
I think that an ethnicity has to reach a critical mass before they begin to be singled out for something like URM status. i.e. No governing body is going to count how many physicians of Bahraini descent there are relative to a small ethnic population. This would be tedious and wouldn't help in improving overall health rates for the whole country. Increasing physicians for an underserved ethnic group such as Mexican Americans which account for more than 34 million people (not counting the additional 7 million undocumented), would have more tangible public health impact than trying to narrow in on very small ethnic groups.

However, if you were from a very small ethnic group and you saw that there was a major lack of physicians in your community, and you wrote about this in your essays and your reasons for going into medicine - I guarantee that Adcoms would be sympathetic and receptive towards it. You wouldn't be "URM" but you'd likely be looked at differently.

I'm not actually suggesting to do this, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of boosting the ratio of admitted students for some races and not others.
 
Last edited:
Top