Not mentioning ethnicity on applications - disadvantage?

[XmedBarney]

It seems like people are arguing by choosing to argue the question they would prefer to argue rather than the question that is being argued at hand.

Argument #1:
The URM

The idea that patients would prefer a healthcare provider that is similar to them demographically and therefore we should assure an appropriate mix, is a
dangerous notion to feed into society. What happens when white(majority) patients start refusing treatment from non-whites, will the medical community
cater to the whims of racists then? It's amazingly short-sighted that we would allow the reverse to happen either.

The concept of a URM itself is a little confusing to me, is it ethnic, racial(historical), religious, nationality, sexual orientation or some combination of these,
to me it seems a trivial challenge to come up with a ludicrous combination of things to show that one is an URM.

Argument #2
The Discriminatee

Basically the minority's argument(independent of SES) AA's, Latino's, and every other non-white group, with each one claiming to a different
Past or the present where they were/are discriminated against.

Reparations, if any are to be paid at all, cannot be paid to an individual from a group when it was the group that suffered from discrimination. A thorough
effort must be mate do correct past mistakes so that the benefits of that correction are spread equally amongst the group and do not benefit any individual.


Argument #3
Low SES

Basically, you are a victim of your family's financial misfortunes since childhood, and therefore are unable to compete on an equal footing with those
who are better off. This is probably the only real dogmatically consistent rebalancing that can be done in admissions of any sort including medical admissions.

Argument #4
The Asian Syndrome

The glass ceiling effect, although this probably isn't the entire story. It seems that a lot of uncompetitive applicants are trying especially at the bottom end
of the GPA scale.
See http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ons-disadvantage.1052363/page-8#post-14845856

Argument #5
The White Man gets the short end of the stick

These are usually the folks who argue that meritocracy should rule above all else. Which actually ends up being more of a truism than a truth. There are plenty of reasons why a true meritocracy would not work in a multicultural capitalist society. The accumulation of advantages over time and multiple generations is usually too difficult to overcome, and meritocracy would become more of a plutocracy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Reckoner]

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.

First of all, welcome and thank you for contributing. Looking at the second graph, I'm wondering if the California thing I looked into earlier might have a more severe effect on "low-stat" applicants. I don't know if there is a breakdown of applicants by MCAT/GPA within each state, but I would imagine it's extremely difficult for the mediocre California applicant compared to all other groups (>60% of public school seats at UCSF, UCSD, and UCLA). If roughly one out of every five Asian applicants is a Californian, I think it's safe to assume one out of every five mediocre Asian applicants is probably a Californian. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this had quite a large effect at the lower stat combinations. There's probably quite a bit more going on as well, of course. And as many have said MCAT/GPA don't tell nearly the whole story. Still worth considering though.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

First of all, welcome and thank you for contributing. Looking at the second graph, I'm wondering if the California thing I looked into earlier might have a more severe effect on "low-stat" applicants. I don't know if there is a breakdown of applicants by MCAT/GPA within each state, but I would imagine it's extremely difficult for the mediocre California applicant compared to all other groups (>60% of public school seats at UCSF, UCSD, and UCLA). If roughly one out of every five Asian applicants is a Californian, I think it's safe to assume one out of every five mediocre Asian applicants is probably a Californian. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this had quite a large effect at the lower stat combinations. There's probably quite a bit more going on as well, of course. And as many have said MCAT/GPA don't tell nearly the whole story. Still worth considering though.

Please elaborate on the implications that 1/5 Asian applicants are from California. How does that explain the lower success rate of asian applicants?

 

[ChemEngMD]

Please elaborate on the implications that 1/5 Asian applicants are from California. How does that explain the lower success rate of asian applicants?

California applicants have the toughest time being successful because there are so many of them relative to their state schools. I haven't been to a single interview that didn't have at least 1 or 2 Californian interviewees (and I've been primarily on the east coast). One school I went to had 30% of their MS1 class from California (and they're on the east coast). If you made a grid for California applicants I'd bet it'd probably be even more skewed than the Asian applicants.

So compounding the California factor may have a bigger effect on Asian applicants since 20% of them are from this very competitive state.

 

[Reckoner]

Please elaborate on the implications that 1/5 Asian applicants are from California. How does that explain the lower success rate of asian applicants?

I'm not saying it totally explains it. But per my previous post (with sources), 23% of Asian applicants nationally are California residents, vs ~8% of White applicants. If California is one of the most difficult states for applicants with mid-range stats (most on SDN agree it is), that difficulty would disproportionately affect Asians.

 

[gumdrops]

Now I'm gonna go ahead and say you are straight. Seriously who doesn't know about gaydar?

You have failed as a clinician if you need to resort to such personal disclosure of information in order to establish rapport with a patient. If some doctor opened a conversation with me about sensitive topics by sharing their sexual orientation, I'd feel as if they had overstepped their boundaries or worse, were trying to extract information from me that I'd rather keep personal. It's really undignified at best and could be seen as coercion or harassment at worst. My doctor is my doctor. Not my friend.

Also, I hope to all that is good and holy that you never use gaydar in a clinic. Gaydar does not equal intuition or empathy. It's making assumptions about someone, which is the kind of behavior we're hoping to reduce by admitting a more diverse group of future clinicians to medical school.

 

[ChemEngMD]

You have failed as a clinician if you need to resort to such personal disclosure of information in order to establish rapport with a patient. If some doctor opened a conversation with me about sensitive topics by sharing their sexual orientation, I'd feel as if they had overstepped their boundaries or worse, were trying to extract information from me that I'd rather keep personal. It's really undignified at best and could be seen as coercion or harassment at worst. My doctor is my doctor. Not my friend.

Also, I hope to all that is good and holy that you never use gaydar in a clinic. Gaydar does not equal intuition or empathy. It's making assumptions about someone, which is the kind of behavior we're hoping to reduce by admitting a more diverse group of future clinicians to medical school.

I think there is more than one way to be a clinician. Many of the most effective community clinicians have close relationships with their patients. My physician growing up knew all about my family and extended family and we knew about his. I read a book by a physician who spoke about the small rural community she worked in and people would approach her in public spaces to ask medical questions or would call her and she would meet them at the DMV or supermarket.

Just because you don't want your doctor to be your friend doesn't mean that everyone is like that. I would much rather have a close relationship with my physician - it allows me to tell him/her more things, and trust is built through the mutual exchange of information.

 

[touchpause13]

You have failed as a clinician if you need to resort to such personal disclosure of information in order to establish rapport with a patient. If some doctor opened a conversation with me about sensitive topics by sharing their sexual orientation, I'd feel as if they had overstepped their boundaries or worse, were trying to extract information from me that I'd rather keep personal. It's really undignified at best and could be seen as coercion or harassment at worst. My doctor is my doctor. Not my friend.

Also, I hope to all that is good and holy that you never use gaydar in a clinic. Gaydar does not equal intuition or empathy. It's making assumptions about someone, which is the kind of behavior we're hoping to reduce by admitting a more diverse group of future clinicians to medical school.

Lol wut.
Just because you don't want to have a close relationship with your physician doesn't mean no one does. It is very dependent on specialty IMO as well as location. I live in a rural town. I see my physician in a restaurant and we say hi, ask each other about our spouses, shoot the ****. I don't see the big deal with knowing a bit about your doc's life outside of work.

And again I don't think people here understand teh gaydar. It's not like I can turn it off haha. Do you want me to stop noticing if someone is a ginger?

 

[gumdrops]

I think there is more than one way to be a clinician. Many of the most effective community clinicians have close relationships with their patients. My physician growing up knew all about my family and extended family and we knew about his. I read a book by a physician who spoke about the small rural community she worked in and people would approach her in public spaces to ask medical questions or would call her and she would meet them at the DMV or supermarket.

Just because you don't want your doctor to be your friend doesn't mean that everyone is like that. I would much rather have a close relationship with my physician - it allows me to tell him/her more things, and trust is built through the mutual exchange of information.

I guess this is where people's standards of what defines "personal" comes into play. I'd be very embarrassed if a doctor wanted to talk to me about my sexual life and opened by sharing about theirs. I'd honestly wonder what they're getting at. Yeah, there are times when you may have to delve into it but I'd shift my demeanor so they were comfortable in sharing. You can build rapport with a patient using the guidelines you would for holding a conversation in any professional setting, I feel. I'd have no problem talking about my hobbies, background or family but sharing information about my sexual preferences is tricky. I could foresee so many conversations where that sort of sharing could go terribly wrong and very few scenarios where it was necessary or beneficial.

@touchpause13 I could be misunderstanding "gaydar" here. I always thought it was developing a sense for who is gay and straight through observation. I would say "gaydar" is a valid mode of clinical observation if you and I were to put ten people in a row and you could say with consistent accuracy who is gay as well as you could who is a ginger. I can do that with gingers. I can't do that for gay people. Your sense of intuition is likely much, much better than mine for this but I haven't yet met anyone who has had 100% accurate gaydar. That's why I find it dangerous.

 

[touchpause13]

The thing is, your sexual orientation does come into play when discussing your family or your hobbies. You don't think about things like that because you've never had to worry about hiding them. Letting on your sexual orientation isn't the same as saying you prefer doggy style over missionary. I don't understand your need to keep bringing up sex.

And I'd give myself 99% accuracy with women. slightly lower with men.

 

[Lucca]

It seems like people are arguing by choosing to argue the question they would prefer to argue rather than the question that is being argued at hand.

Argument #1:
The URM

The idea that patients would prefer a healthcare provider that is similar to them demographically and therefore we should assure an appropriate mix, is a
dangerous notion to feed into society. What happens when white(majority) patients start refusing treatment from non-whites, will the medical community
cater to the whims of racists then? It's amazingly short-sighted that we would allow the reverse to happen either.

The concept of a URM itself is a little confusing to me, is it ethnic, racial(historical), religious, nationality, sexual orientation or some combination of these,
to me it seems a trivial challenge to come up with a ludicrous combination of things to show that one is an URM.

Argument #2
The Discriminatee

Basically the minority's argument(independent of SES) AA's, Latino's, and every other non-white group, with each one claiming to a different
Past or the present where they were/are discriminated against.

Reparations, if any are to be paid at all, cannot be paid to an individual from a group when it was the group that suffered from discrimination. A thorough
effort must be mate do correct past mistakes so that the benefits of that correction are spread equally amongst the group and do not benefit any individual.


Argument #3
Low SES

Basically, you are a victim of your family's financial misfortunes since childhood, and therefore are unable to compete on an equal footing with those
who are better off. This is probably the only real dogmatically consistent rebalancing that can be done in admissions of any sort including medical admissions.

Argument #4
The Asian Syndrome

The glass ceiling effect, although this probably isn't the entire story. It seems that a lot of uncompetitive applicants are trying especially at the bottom end
of the GPA scale.
See http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ons-disadvantage.1052363/page-8#post-14845856

Argument #5
The White Man gets the short end of the stick

These are usually the folks who argue that meritocracy should rule above all else. Which actually ends up being more of a truism than a truth. There are plenty of reasons why a true meritocracy would not work in a multicultural capitalist society. The accumulation of advantages over time and multiple generations is usually too difficult to overcome, and meritocracy would become more of a plutocracy.

1. URM is well-defined in the context of medical admissions. The AAMC has defined it and made its intentions public. Again, the whole "URMs serving URMs" thing is not a "racist" argument. See my earlier post in this thread for a full explanation on this but I think its been covered pretty well as to why having URMs serve URMs is a straightforward way to deliver care to historically underserved populations. When I say underserved I mean both by availability of care and underserved by making the active choice to not involve themselves in the medical system for x,y,z reasons.
2.There is no burden from discrimination and this isn't about reparations. If it was mentioned at all in this thread I ignored it because that's silly and has nothing to do with what a medical school is trying to accomplish.
3. Yup, LizzyM cleared this up for us on like page 4.
4.See my earlier post.
5.Your right about a meritocracy being impossible in a capitalist society and I'm surprised it wasn't brought up sooner. Thanks for contributing that to the discussion.

 

[gumdrops]

The thing is, your sexual orientation does come into play when discussing your family or your hobbies. You don't think about things like that because you've never had to worry about hiding them. Letting on your sexual orientation isn't the same as saying you prefer doggy style over missionary. I don't understand your need to keep bringing up sex.

And I'd give myself 99% accuracy with women. slightly lower with men.

I said "sexual orientation or "sexual preferences." You were the one who read sexual acts into it. Sexuality is on a continuum, not just being gay or straight. If I open that dialogue, I expect that it's not going to be some cookie-cutter answer right off the bat because I wouldn't have felt the need to open it otherwise. I know men who consider themselves gay and still see women. I know bisexual people who have preferences either for the opposite sex or their own. For a lot of people, sexuality is pretty darn complicated and emotionally loaded. You likely understand this much better than I do.

We're both acknowledging that this is a huge part of people's lives. I'd like to believe that patients would trust me enough to be open without that stuff by my creating an atmosphere of no judgment. With that said, I haven't experienced the sort of judgment that would keep me from being open about a very fundamental aspect of who I am. As a gay person, I also see how you could pull off this sharing in a way that I couldn't.

 

[LizzyM]

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.

In fact, men have a MCAT that is on average a point higher than women. So men are like Asians, they need higher stats to get an offer of admission compared to women. Isn't that unfair? Shouldn't women just be happy to have male doctors and women should be given more help starting in kindergarten so that they can do better on this important exam and after another 20 years maybe there will be enough qualified women in the pipeline that they 'll get in on their merits.


As for gay physicians... every think that you might see your physician and his or her spouse or partner pictured together in the newspaper social page or have a picture of the family displayed in the office (the place with the desk and the chairs where the doctor can speak to you before you get undressed and examined). In some markets there are advertising and marketing materials that are aimed at this "market segment" and a physician might advertise in these newspapers and at events that are targeted at this market. Word of mouth can be pretty powerful, too. All of this without any mention of what goes on in the bedroom!

 

[MangoPlant]

In fact, men have a MCAT that is on average a point higher than women. So men are like Asians, they need higher stats to get an offer of admission compared to women.

You forgot that women on average have a higher GPA. Men need higher average MCAT because they have lower average GPA.

source: https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/2013factstable23.pdf

Asians on the other hand, need BOTH higher average MCAT and GPA.

 

[touchpause13]

Haha this cat did not just try and straight splain to me that sexuality is complicated.

 

[LizzyM]

You forgot that women on average have a higher GPA. Men need higher average MCAT because they have lower average GPA.

source: https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/2013factstable23.pdf

Asians on the other hand, need BOTH higher average MCAT and GPA.

But MCAT is the same for everyone whereas GPA can be higher if one takes easier courses... men may be more likely to major in engineering which hurts gpa compared with humanities and social sciences

 

[MangoPlant]

But MCAT is the same for everyone whereas GPA can be higher if one takes easier courses... men may be more likely to major in engineering which hurts gpa compared with humanities and social sciences

I agree with you that easier courses change GPA, but that still doesn't change the fact that men don't need both higher average mcat AND gpa to get accepted like Asians do. They need higher average MCAT (according to the data) but that's because they can get by with lower GPA regardless of what caused that lower GPA (be it engineering, sports, alcoholism, etc). Additionally, from what I've seen in most previous threads about major and GPA, GPA matters a lot more than major. As an adcom you will likely know more about this than I will though.

 

[487806]

Wow, quite a thread. Well done @ChemEngMD @Reckoner @LizzyM @touchpause13 for powerful arguments to shut down this URM thread.

 

[Reckoner]

Wow, quite a thread. Well done @ChemEngMD @Reckoner @LizzyM @touchpause13 for powerful arguments to shut down this URM thread.

(Checks post number)
Apparently we didn't do that well...

 

[MangoPlant]

Wow, quite a thread. Well done @ChemEngMD @Reckoner @LizzyM @touchpause13 for powerful arguments to shut down this URM thread.

Have you even read the thread? No arguments that "shut down" this thread have been presented. Both sides have presented tough arguments and it is clear that no side has shut down the other side. Furthermore, this thread was intended to be about ORM disadvantage, not about URM advantage. Lastly, if you are going to ramble about how posters on SDN should not be allowed to talk about ORM/URM because you feel uncomfortable about those topics, please ignore this thread.

 

[487806]

Have you even read the thread? No arguments that "shut down" this thread have been presented. Both sides have presented tough arguments and it is clear that no side has shut down the other side. Furthermore, this thread was intended to be about ORM disadvantage, not about URM advantage. Lastly, if you are going to ramble about how posters on SDN should not be allowed to talk about ORM/URM because you feel uncomfortable about those topics, please ignore this thread.

Yup. Knew this type of post will emerge.

The responses made by the members I quoted gave a pretty substantiated response and were patient enough to continue responding despite the redundant arguments made by the opposition. And by the simple use of the search function, your thread isn't unique at all, since many topics dealt with a problem exactly similar to this (a very recent one I noticed but whose name I shall not reveal). The whole URM/ORM issue is resolved and continuing this discussion will only lead to redundancy.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

In fact, men have a MCAT that is on average a point higher than women. So men are like Asians, they need higher stats to get an offer of admission compared to women. Isn't that unfair? Shouldn't women just be happy to have male doctors and women should be given more help starting in kindergarten so that they can do better on this important exam and after another 20 years maybe there will be enough qualified women in the pipeline that they 'll get in on their merits.

1. Yes, it is unethical to hold one group of people (based on gender, race, whatever) to higher standards. Applicants should be judged as individuals.

2. Clearly certain groups are not as well prepared for medical school, on average, as other groups. This is proven by the fact that URM students have a much higher attrition rate than white or Asian students. With all due respect, your comment above comes across as obnoxious. There are very real discrepancies in the American educational system, which are evident in the fact that 1) A lower proportion of URM students apply to medical school compared to other groups, and 2) URM students have a much higher dropout rate. So yes, I would argue that URM groups should be "given more help starting in kindergarten."

 

[gumdrops]

Yup. Knew this type of post will emerge.

The responses made by the members I quoted gave a pretty substantiated response and were patient enough to continue responding despite the redundant arguments made by the opposition. And by the simple use of the search function, your thread isn't unique at all, since many topics dealt with a problem exactly similar to this (a very recent one I noticed but whose name I shall not reveal). The whole URM/ORM issue is resolved and continuing this discussion will only lead to redundancy.

Resolution implies a solution that is mutually satisfactory to both sides. It's not resolved so much as it is what it is.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

Wow, quite a thread. Well done @ChemEngMD @Reckoner @LizzyM @touchpause13 for powerful arguments to shut down this URM thread.

The thread isn't just about URM, it's more concentrated on ORMs (or I would like it to be anyways).

I guess at the end of the day, I sense that it does not bother a lot of you guys that ORMs need on average higher entrance statistics than Whites for every GPA/MCAT score combination possible. That kind of bothers me as I find it rather callous.

Try putting yourself in one of their shoes, and being told that because of your race, you're expected to perform better academically. Other people who look similar to you can do it, so you should be able to also. From this perspective, it feels like discrimination (from an institution out of all things).

 

[Lucca]

1. Yes, it is unethical to hold one group of people (based on gender, race, whatever) to higher standards. Applicants should be judged as individuals.

2. Clearly certain groups are not as well prepared for medical school, on average, as other groups. This is proven by the fact that URM students have a much higher attrition rate than white or Asian students. With all due respect, your comment above comes across as obnoxious. There are very real discrepancies in the American educational system, which are evident in the fact that 1) A lower proportion of URM students apply to medical school compared to other groups, and 2) URM students have a much higher dropout rate. So yes, I would argue that URM groups should be "given more help starting in kindergarten."

.......and for every other URM that is able to achieve higher levels of education and professional prestige a whole other generation of URMs has a greater potential to succeed. A latino physician who just shows up and talks to kids in a high school where most of the kids are expected to drop out or join a gang can be a huge inspiration. The effect doesn't even have to be that dramatic. All it might take is a URM physician having one child who will have a greater chance of success from the get go than their parent ever did because of all the luxuries and opportunities money affords in this country. The same story applies to undergrad admissions. Think about the change you're asking for: deep, institutional change surrounding the way you educate low-income students. This is an ENORMOUS issue. Providing greater educational opportunities for URM students is an easy fix that can be carried out by institutions on a candidate by candidate basis. Sure, URMs have higher drop-out rates, that's to be expected, but overall undergraduate and professional institutions have afforded these students greater opportunities than they would have ever had in a completely meritocratic system. Again, as was mentioned earlier, this is the consequence of living in a capitalist society.

And all of this falls under the category of "educating a population that will meet the needs of the American public."

The thread isn't just about URM, it's more concentrated on ORMs (or I would like it to be anyways).

I guess at the end of the day, I sense that it does not bother a lot of you guys that ORMs need on average higher entrance statistics than Whites for every GPA/MCAT score combination possible. That kind of bothers me as I find it rather callous.

Try putting yourself in one of their shoes, and being told that because of your race, you're expected to perform better academically. Other people who look similar to you can do it, so you should be able to also. From this perspective, it feels like discrimination (from an institution out of all things).

ORMs compete with other ORMs. Several adcoms have already put into perspective that advantaged URMs don't particularly have an absolute advantage over most ORMs once the context of that candidate's application has been evaluated holistically. ORMs are - by definition - over-represented and those comprise a more competitive (and I'll remind you, more often successful) applicant pool. Race is an easy way to make this distinction but it's not the ONLY way the distinction is made, this too has been covered already in this thread.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

.......and for every other URM that is able to achieve higher levels of education and professional prestige a whole other generation of URMs has a greater potential to succeed. A latino physician who just shows up and talks to kids in a high school where most of the kids are expected to drop out or join a gang can be a huge inspiration. The effect doesn't even have to be that dramatic. All it might take is a URM physician having one child who will have a greater chance of success from the get go than their parent ever did because of all the luxuries and opportunities money affords in this country. The same story applies to undergrad admissions. Think about the change you're asking for: deep, institutional change surrounding the way you educate low-income students. This is an ENORMOUS issue. Providing greater educational opportunities for URM students is an easy fix that can be carried out by institutions on a candidate by candidate basis. Sure, URMs have higher drop-out rates, that's to be expected, but overall undergraduate and professional institutions have afforded these students greater opportunities than they would have ever had in a completely meritocratic system. Again, as was mentioned earlier, this is the consequence of living in a capitalist society.

And all of this falls under the category of "educating a population that will meet the needs of the American public."

I grew up in a rough area, and I have to say, I have never witnessed anything like this. The people who make it out are outta there so fast your head would spin, and they don't look back. Affirmative action has been in place for decades now. Is there any hard evidence that affirmative action has resulted in lasting social changes?

Providing increased educational opportunities at the level of GRADUATE SCHOOL is too little, too late.

 

[MangoPlant]

.......and for every other URM that is able to achieve higher levels of education and professional prestige a whole other generation of URMs has a greater potential to succeed. A latino physician who just shows up and talks to kids in a high school where most of the kids are expected to drop out or join a gang can be a huge inspiration. The effect doesn't even have to be that dramatic. All it might take is a URM physician having one child who will have a greater chance of success from the get go than their parent ever did because of all the luxuries and opportunities money affords in this country. The same story applies to undergrad admissions. Think about the change you're asking for: deep, institutional change surrounding the way you educate low-income students. This is an ENORMOUS issue. Providing greater educational opportunities for URM students is an easy fix that can be carried out by institutions on a candidate by candidate basis. Sure, URMs have higher drop-out rates, that's to be expected, but overall undergraduate and professional institutions have afforded these students greater opportunities than they would have ever had in a completely meritocratic system. Again, as was mentioned earlier, this is the consequence of living in a capitalist society.

.......and for every other poor person that is able to achieve higher levels of education and professional prestige a whole other generation of poor people have a greater potential to succeed. A once-poor physician who just shows up and talks to kids in a high school where most of the kids are expected to drop out or join a gang can be a huge inspiration. The effect doesn't even have to be that dramatic. All it might take is a once-poor physician having one child who will have a greater chance of success from the get go than their parent ever did because of all the luxuries and opportunities money affords in this country. The same story applies to undergrad admissions. Think about the change you're asking for: deep, institutional change surrounding the way you educate low-income students. This is an ENORMOUS issue. Providing greater educational opportunities for poor students is an easy fix that can be carried out by institutions on a candidate by candidate basis. Sure, poor students have higher drop-out rates, that's to be expected, but overall undergraduate and professional institutions have afforded these students greater opportunities than they would have ever had in a completely meritocratic system. Again, as was mentioned earlier, this is the consequence of living in a capitalist society.

Any poor person faces the same difficulties that you mentioned. Being URM isn't what causes these difficulties, it's being poor. Being URM causes social problems like having to deal with racism, but that's also not special to URM. Asians also deal with racism.

 

[Lucca]

I grew up in a rough area, and I have to say, I have never witnessed anything like this. The people who make it out are outta there so fast your head would spin, and they don't look back. Affirmative action has been in place for decades now. Is there any hard evidence that affirmative action has had any lasting social change?

Yes.

[redacted]

 

[Lucca]

.......and for every other poor person that is able to achieve higher levels of education and professional prestige a whole other generation of poor people have a greater potential to succeed. A once-poor physician who just shows up and talks to kids in a high school where most of the kids are expected to drop out or join a gang can be a huge inspiration. The effect doesn't even have to be that dramatic. All it might take is a once-poor physician having one child who will have a greater chance of success from the get go than their parent ever did because of all the luxuries and opportunities money affords in this country. The same story applies to undergrad admissions. Think about the change you're asking for: deep, institutional change surrounding the way you educate low-income students. This is an ENORMOUS issue. Providing greater educational opportunities for poor students is an easy fix that can be carried out by institutions on a candidate by candidate basis. Sure, poor students have higher drop-out rates, that's to be expected, but overall undergraduate and professional institutions have afforded these students greater opportunities than they would have ever had in a completely meritocratic system. Again, as was mentioned earlier, this is the consequence of living in a capitalist society.

Any poor person faces the same difficulties that you mentioned. Being URM isn't what causes these difficulties, it's being poor. Being URM causes social problems like having to deal with racism, but that's also not special to URM. Asians also deal with racism.

Again, we've already dealt with this distinction. There is a difference from disadvantaged URM to advantaged URM. LizzyM outlined this very early in the thread and its been said all over this forum a thousand times. There is existing evidence that SES is definitely a factor in admissions already. URMs are kind of the staple for this distinction since Asians are overwhelmingly wealthy and Caucasians are traditionally wealthy. The added bonus is that URMs still serve the function of serving community specific needs.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Again, we've already dealt with this distinction. There is a difference from disadvantaged URM to advantaged URM. LizzyM outlined this very early in the thread and its been said all over this forum a thousand times.

I know LizzyM says that advantaged URMs are not given a boost, but in my anecdotal experience this is NOT the case. I know many privileged URMs who somehow made it into top 20 schools with sub-par stats. I do not know a SINGLE white or Asian student who was able to accomplish the same feat.

 

[LizzyM]

1. Yes, it is unethical to hold one group of people (based on gender, race, whatever) to higher standards. Applicants should be judged as individuals.

2. Clearly certain groups are not as well prepared for medical school, on average, as other groups. This is proven by the fact that URM students have a much higher attrition rate than white or Asian students. With all due respect, your comment above comes across as obnoxious. There are very real discrepancies in the American educational system, which are evident in the fact that 1) A lower proportion of URM students apply to medical school compared to other groups, and 2) URM students have a much higher dropout rate. So yes, I would argue that URM groups should be "given more help starting in kindergarten."

Certain "groups" are not well prepared?? Is it only me or, do others see that as a racist comment? Adjusting for MCAT score, which we know to be associated with likelihood of completing medical school and adjusting for socioeconomic status which is also associated with the likelihood of finishing medical school, are some groups not well prepared or is anyone of any race who came out of a family with low SES and who has a low MCAT is at higher risk regardless of their racial/ethnic group.

We know that the likelihood of graduating in 4 years is about the same whether you have a 26 or a 30 or a 34. The average for matriculants is 31 for men and 30 for women. Should we select only those folks who have a a 29 or higher regardless of any other factor?

Fact is, we sometimes see applicants who we call "high risk/high reward". There chances of successful completion may not be as good as some others (maybe a 92% compared with 95%), but what they bring in terms of experience and motivation and career goals makes us debate whether it would be worth it to take the risk.

This thought just occured to me. Could some of the lower stats for whites than for Asians, be a function of in-state preference in states that have a low proportion of Asians? Therefore, many seats are not open to OOS Asians but go to instate white applicants with lower stats than OOS Asians have. Ditto seats at the HBCU that go to URM applicants with lower stats and that admit very few ORM students because of the mission of the school to educate physicians to serve unerserved populations and to address health disparities.

 

[Lucca]

I know LizzyM says that advantaged URMs are not given a boost, but in my anecdotal experience this is NOT the case. I know many privileged URMs who somehow made it into top 20 schools with sub-par stats. I do not know a SINGLE white or Asian student who was able to accomplish the same feat.

n=1. Do you know those URMs entire life stories? Were they always advantaged? Were there other obstacles they had to overcome? I have an asian friend from high school currently at Princeton and he didn't even break 2200 on the SAT but his family immigrated from China, made less than 20K a year, and he worked his ass off throughout high school both in the classroom and at their family store. Also n=1 so kind of hypocritical but these examples exist. LizzyMs words are valuable because she's an adcom so she has a much, much, much larger sample size than either of us.

 

[MangoPlant]

Again, we've already dealt with this distinction. There is a difference from disadvantaged URM to advantaged URM. LizzyM outlined this very early in the thread and its been said all over this forum a thousand times.

So why is it that every time an argument is brought up about people having to live in a tough neighborhood, it's always about URMs? ANY poor person who lives in a bad neighborhood has to face these difficulties.

Any time that a medical school has to report its class' racial demographics, URMs, rich or poor, will be given consideration over any other ethnicity rich or poor.

 

[Lucca]

Again, we've already dealt with this distinction. There is a difference from disadvantaged URM to advantaged URM. LizzyM outlined this very early in the thread and its been said all over this forum a thousand times. There is existing evidence that SES is definitely a factor in admissions already. URMs are kind of the staple for this distinction since Asians are overwhelmingly wealthy and Caucasians are traditionally wealthy. The added bonus is that URMs still serve the function of serving community specific needs.

So why is it that every time an argument is brought up about people having to live in a tough neighborhood, it's always about URMs? ANY poor person who lives in a bad neighborhood has to face these difficulties.

Any time that a medical school has to report its class' racial demographics, URMs, rich or poor, will be given consideration over any other ethnicity rich or poor.

Did you finish reading?

 

[MangoPlant]

Certain "groups" are not well prepared?? Is it only me or, do others see that as a racist comment?

Definitely not a racist comment. URMs are disproportionately poor and more likely to grow up in bad enviorments/neighborhoods, therefore these groups are not as well prepared when compared with rich counterparts who had the luxury of attending high school without having to worry about getting shot. This is why my argument of using SES would still benefit URMs more than Asians/whites.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Certain "groups" are not well prepared?? Is it only me or, do others see that as a racist comment? Adjusting for MCAT score, which we know to be associated with likelihood of completing medical school and adjusting for socioeconomic status which is also associated with the likelihood of finishing medical school, are some groups not well prepared or is anyone of any race who came out of a family with low SES and who has a low MCAT is at higher risk regardless of their racial/ethnic group.

Certain groups have a higher attrition rate. These same groups are the ones that fall under "URM" status, and are admitted with lower average MCATs and GPAs.

I don't see how that is racist. It is factual.

Edit: Yes, to answer your question, I would assume that an applicant with a <26 MCAT is at risk to drop out, no matter what his/her race. Problem is, there are a lot more URM students with a low MCAT, compared to white students, and especially compared to Asian students.

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

ORMs compete with other ORMs. Several adcoms have already put into perspective that advantaged URMs don't particularly have an absolute advantage over most ORMs once the context of that candidate's application has been evaluated holistically. ORMs are - by definition - over-represented and those comprise a more competitive (and I'll remind you, more often successful) applicant pool. Race is an easy way to make this distinction but it's not the ONLY way the distinction is made, this too has been covered already in this thread.

For the last time we're not comparing ORMs versus URMs. We're comparing ORMs versus White applicants. Please stop being so dismissive.

 

[MangoPlant]

Did you finish reading?

I see what you are saying, but that argument relies on assumptions that Asians are overwhelmingly wealthy and that blacks are overwhelmingly poor. I'll try to find statistics, but If I remember correctly, I've read that our current policies mostly result in a bunch of middle class black/latino kids being recruited with lower statistics than significantly increasing matriculation by the targeted group of poor black/latino kids.

 

[turayza]

Definitely not a racist comment. URMs are disproportionately poor and more likely to grow up in bad enviorments/neighborhoods, therefore these groups are not as well prepared when compared with rich counterparts who had the luxury of attending high school without having to worry about getting shot. This is why my argument of using SES would still benefit URMs more than Asians/whites.

Race is considered in addition to SES because of structural violence/racism that disadvantages minorities. I can't say much about why ORM don't receive that impact (though more and more institutions are recognizing that SE Asians are recipients of disadvantages that E Asians may not be).

 

[MangoPlant]

Race is considered in addition to SES because of structural violence/racism that disadvantages minorities. I can't say much about why ORM don't receive that impact (though more and more institutions are recognizing that SE Asians are recipients of disadvantages that E Asians may not be).

Thank you for realizing that ORMs are also subject to racism

 

[Lucca]

For the last time we're not comparing ORMs versus URMs. We're comparing ORMs versus White applicants. Please stop being so dismissive.

What? Considering most of the comments on the thread have been about how ORMs need to "work harder" than other groups to get into medical school I think it very well includes URMs. Why only White applicants? What are you even talking about?

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

Certain "groups" are not well prepared?? Is it only me or, do others see that as a racist comment? Adjusting for MCAT score, which we know to be associated with likelihood of completing medical school and adjusting for socioeconomic status which is also associated with the likelihood of finishing medical school, are some groups not well prepared or is anyone of any race who came out of a family with low SES and who has a low MCAT is at higher risk regardless of their racial/ethnic group.

We know that the likelihood of graduating in 4 years is about the same whether you have a 26 or a 30 or a 34. The average for matriculants is 31 for men and 30 for women. Should we select only those folks who have a a 29 or higher regardless of any other factor?

Fact is, we sometimes see applicants who we call "high risk/high reward". There chances of successful completion may not be as good as some others (maybe a 92% compared with 95%), but what they bring in terms of experience and motivation and career goals makes us debate whether it would be worth it to take the risk.

This thought just occured to me. Could some of the lower stats for whites than for Asians, be a function of in-state preference in states that have a low proportion of Asians? Therefore, many seats are not open to OOS Asians but go to instate white applicants with lower stats than OOS Asians have. Ditto seats at the HBCU that go to URM applicants with lower stats and that admit very few ORM students because of the mission of the school to educate physicians to serve unerserved populations and to address health disparities.

LizzyM I don't think it's fair to call MangoPlant racist. Logically, a group admitted with a lower academic score may have a higher chance of ultimately dropping out. Perhaps you can show me literature otherwise, but I generally thought MCATs predicted matriculation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23478635

 

[MangoPlant]

What? Considering most of the comments on the thread have been about how ORMs need to "work harder" than other groups to get into medical school I think it very well includes URMs. Why only White applicants? What are you even talking about?

We're talking about the fact that Latinos/Blacks/Asians are all minorities yet Latinos/Blacks are held to lower standards than whites wheras Asians are held to higher standards.

Argument: Latinos and Blacks are poor!
Response: So then why not use SES which would still benefit Latinos and Blacks and poor asians?

Argument: Latinos and Blacks have to face racism!
Response: Do Asians also not?

The above examples are comparing URMs to ORMs, this is not what this thread was intended for. Let's leave URMs out of it because they are so few in number and argue this:

Asians are a minority, face racism, and poor Asians exist too. Why do they need higher numbers to get in than whites?

 

[GoodGuyGregory]

What? Considering most of the comments on the thread have been about how ORMs need to "work harder" than other groups to get into medical school I think it very well includes URMs. Why only White applicants? What are you even talking about?

I said I felt it discriminatory to ask for ORMs to have a higher bar raised for them as compared to White applicants.

You responded: ORMs should have a higher bar set for them because they have had more advantages than URMs.

 

[turayza]

We're talking about the fact that Latinos/Blacks/Asians are all minorities yet Latinos/Blacks are held to lower standards than whites wheras Asians are held to higher standards.

Argument: Latinos and Blacks are poor!
Response: So then why not use SES which would still benefit Latinos and Blacks and poor asians?

Argument: Latinos and Blacks have to face racism!
Response: Do Asians also not?

One of the arguments for why ORMs need to have higher stats for equal consideration might be that the fact that so many (disproportionate compared to proportion in general population) achieve those stats, showing that whatever racism they face is not enough to impact their academic success negatively in the way it impacts that of URM.

Is SES not used for admissions...? It sounds like it's only taken into account for need-based financial aid.


Edit: hey! you edited your post! now I feel irrelevant

 

[Lucca]

I see what you are saying, but that argument relies on assumptions that Asians are overwhelmingly wealthy and that blacks are overwhelmingly poor. I'll try to find statistics, but If I remember correctly, I've read that our current policies mostly result in a bunch of middle class black/latino kids being recruited with lower statistics than significantly increasing matriculation by the targeted group of poor black/latino kids.

Not an assumption.

Also I'm going to place this here because it's full of extremely helpful data from the AAMC.

And finally. This. This last one's a bit long but I'll quote the important bit:

The "most disadvantaged" applicants are closer to EO-1 and the "least disadvantaged" are closer to EO-5 ; criterion for "advantage" are listed in the paper.
AAMC:

"
Results of an analysis showed a strong association between the EO indicator and each of these six
indicators of socioeconomic disadvantage. For example, 81% of the 2012 AMCAS applicants who had
FAP approval were classified either EO-1 or EO-2. In addition, 45% of applicants assigned EO-1 or EO-
2 responded “yes” to at least two of the above six disadvantaged socioeconomic background questions.
On the other hand, this analysis also revealed limitations to the AAMC SES EO indicator; 36% of
applicants assigned EO-1 and EO-2 had none of the above indicators of being disadvantaged, and 8.7%
of applicants assigned to EO-3, EO-4, and EO-5 had multiple indications of disadvantage. As will be
noted below, this highlights the need to consider multiple factors when considering the SES of
applicants when making admissions decisions.

Also noted are three interesting correlations with the EO classification. First, dramatic differences were
noted in EO groups by race and ethnicity. For example, among 2012 applicants, 54% of African
American and 48% of Hispanic applicants were classified either EO-1 or EO-2 compared to 29% White
and 30% Asian applicants. Second, differences in MCAT scores were also associated with EO groups.
For example, 2012 applicants classified EO-1 had lower MCAT scores than applicants classified as EO-
5 (Figure 2). Third, 2012 applicants excluded from AAMC EO classification (due to parental
information being either “not applicable” or “unknown,” as defined above) had MCAT scores
comparable to applicants assigned EO-2 (26.9 ± 6.2)"

QED.

 

[MangoPlant]

One of the arguments for why ORMs need to have higher stats for equal consideration might be that the fact that so many (disproportionate compared to proportion in general population) achieve those stats, showing that whatever racism they face is not enough to impact their academic success negatively in the way it impacts that of URM.

Is SES not used for admissions...? It sounds like it's only taken into account for need-based financial aid.

Not 100% sure on this, maybe LizzyM or Goro can chime in, but medical schools do NOT have to report SES diversity to LCME (med school accreditation board). How many med-schools are going to be interested in building economic diversity if they don't even have to report it?

 

[Lucca]

I said I felt it discriminatory to ask for ORMs to have a higher bar raised for them as compared to White applicants.

You responded: ORMs should have a higher bar set for them because they have had more advantages than URMs.

Please find the post where I said ORMs should have a higher bar set for them. They have a higher bar set for them because competition amongst themselves is fiercer, it's a natural economic outcome.

Also this.

Average Asian Matriculant GPA: 3.71
Average White Matriculant GPA: 3.71

Average Asian Matriculant MCAT: 32.5
Average White Matriculant GPA: 31.6

OMG THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT EVEN SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AND IM NOT EVEN EXAGGERATING BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY WAY LESS THAN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION FROM EACH OTHER. The conversation about ORM vs. white is so moot, I can't even.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Please find the post where I said ORMs should have a higher bar set for them. They have a higher bar set for them because competition amongst themselves is fiercer, its a natural economic outcome.

I cannot believe we are still discussing this point. People should be judged as INDIVIDUALS, not as members of a specific RACE.

 

[turayza]

Please find the post where I said ORMs should have a higher bar set for them. They have a higher bar set for them because competition amongst themselves is fiercer, its a natural economic outcome.

Also this.

Average Asian Matriculant GPA: 3.71
Average White Matriculant GPA: 3.71

Average Asian Matriculant MCAT: 32.5
Average White Matriculant GPA: 31.6

OMG THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT EVEN SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AND IM NOT EVEN EXAGGERATING BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY WAY LESS THAN ONE STANDARD DEVIATION FROM EACH OTHER. The conversation about ORM vs. white is so moot, I can't even.

lots of caps

Wow, did not know these numbers. Thanks!