Oh no, not another URM thread

[startswithb]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Instead of being a racist sentiment, which is absolutely a horrendous thing to say to anyone, I think that the people against or at least skeptical of affirmative action have an equally although different sense of idealism. That is, that they wish race were not still such the issue that it is that it needs to be addressed in these types of practices.

I think the thing that bothers me the most personally about what has been said in this thread is that certain people are more or less deserving of what they have. I just don't think that can really be quantified.

 

[Jamiu22]

Instead of being a racist sentiment, which is absolutely a horrendous thing to say to anyone, I think that the people against or at least skeptical of affirmative action have an equally although different sense of idealism. That is, that they wish race were not still such the issue that it is that it needs to be addressed in these types of practices.

I think the thing that bothers me the most personally about what has been said in this thread is that certain people are more or less deserving of what they have. I just don't think that can really be quantified.

I completely agree with your post... the problems we all face are unique to each individual... which is why AMCAS designates a section called disadvantaged... unfortunately I feel you get a better consideration if you are designated as under represented.

Schools are trying their best to be more diverse (not just only to increase the amount of minority in health care), but to also add to the diversity experience to all students in their class... it makes the students more culturally sensitive to the needs of not only their minority patients but also minority physicians.

 

[Remuneration]

↕

 

[Jamiu22]

......

BTW, the term racist is reserved for the TRUE, TRUE RACIST... those that hide their face underneath white sheets... not for individuals who are still just trying to figure out right from wrong, politically correct from morally reprehensible. Catch my drift, so people let's just stop using that word on this thread because I dont think it applies to anyone (at least from the posts that I've read thus far).

 

[startswithb]

Dude.... i dont think anyone called you racist.... re-read the post.

BTW, the term racist is reserved for the TRUE, TRUE RACIST... those that hide their face underneath white sheets... not for individuals who are still just trying to figure out right from wrong, politically correct from morally reprehensible. Catch my drift, so people let's just stop using that word on this thread because I dont think it applies to anyone (at least from the posts that I've read thus far).

Thank you, Jamiu. I respect your opinions and think you have brought a real perspective to this thread.

Remuneration is out of control. He obviously has some deep-seated bitterness and thinks that his attacks against "rich, entitled white people" are completely justified. Seems to me that he wants to perpetuate the hate.

 

[LizzyM]

My point is that if anyone believes that we are now all on equal footings, they are just living in la-la land and choose to be ignorant.

My moto is that "Life ain't fair...get used to it"... dwelling on it will only get to you or limit your potentials.

👍

 

[bookfreak89]

Still waiting for the people who are "against or at least skeptical of AA" to answer the question that I posed.

 

[NickNaylor]

Let me see if someone can answer my questions:

1. Are people assuming that non-URM applicants with higher numbers are being rejected from medical schools solely due to their ethnicity?

1a. If so, how do you know that was the reason these applicants were rejected? I am pretty sure we do not have access to data stating the reasons why every single applicant was rejected.

2. Back to mustafirah's (sp?) comment, are people arguing about URMs gaining acceptances to top schools (this is what the OP was discussing, 🙄) or URMs acceptances to all medical schools?

2a. I have not seen anyone complain about how Meharry/Morehouse/Howard (or HBCUs for undergrad) accept predominantly blacks (and also the medical school in Puerto Rico for hispanics). Shouldn't these 'coveted' medical school spots be the focus of your attacks?

*opens MSAR*

# of black matriculants for 08-09 at Meharry/Morehouse/Howard = 204 > # of black matriculants at Top 18 schools combined (201)

Where is the hubbub? I wonder...

1) No.

2) I'm not against URMs getting in to ANY school.

2a) As long as those schools aren't actively discriminating against non-minorities, I don't care. If a large proportion minorities choose and desire to go to these schools and the demographics of the class reflect that, I have no problem with that.

I'm guessing probably not the answers you were expecting from someone against AA.

 

[bookfreak89]

1) No.

2) I'm not against URMs getting in to ANY school.

2a) As long as those schools aren't actively discriminating against non-minorities, I don't care. If a large proportion minorities choose and desire to go to these schools and the demographics of the class reflect that, I have no problem with that.

I'm guessing probably not the answers you were expecting from someone against AA.

Your answers are fine. However, reading this thread as led me to believe that some of the posters in this thread may answer a bit differently...

Would you elaborate on your stance on AA (besides just being against it)?

 

[startswithb]

This is exactly what I thought upon reading his post, but I thought the answer was so obvious that I didn't bother putting in the energy to explain it. That point I was trying to make in my earlier posts is that 1. preference for minorities in applications is about race not SES. 2. therefore many of the arguments such as the ones Renum states are non-applicable (to AA).

This is a flawed arguement. The differences in education are not predicated upon ethnicity but primarily socioeconomic differences. Obviously there is a tie in between ethnicity and socioeconomic status but you previously stated the URM advantage was not predicated upon socioeconomic status. If you live in a district where property values are higher and therefore tax revenues are higher, you will have better funded schools. If you have lower property values, less funding. It is up to the individual to decide what district they live in. I can cite many examples of families that chose to live in certain districts so that their children could reap the benefits even it meant a struggle for the parents.

You previously told me the URM discussion is without including socioeconomic status. If that is the case your so called "de facto segregation arguement" doesn't hold a lot of water. Further, many areas, incuding metro detroit, where I live, allow students to cross district borders to attend schools in alternate districts with open enrollment. While there may be a "psychological" pressure, the impetus is one the student's family to guide and assist them as a family should. If the imperative is education that should trump any other discomforts.

 

[Remuneration]

This is exactly what I thought upon reading his post, but I thought the answer was so obvious that I didn't bother putting in the energy to explain it. That point I was trying to make in my earlier posts is that 1. preference for minorities in applications is about race not SES. 2. therefore many of the arguments such as the ones Renum states are non-applicable (to AA).

You continue to show both a completely lack of reading comprehension and understanding of the situation. I've already said that there is and should be a distinction between minority and SES consideration.

Changing districts is not feasible for everybody. It's not a matter of it being a struggle for the parents. Even if the parents are willing, they may not be financially capable. Blacks continue to be discriminated against in the housing and loan markets, and blacks of similar socioeconomic status (as measured by income, govt assistance, etc) are still often worse off due to a comparative lack of inherited wealth. I'm less familiar with these stats for latinos, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are largely similar.

It's also unfair to put the impetus on the family, completely ignoring the role of history in the development of cultural attitudes towards education.

 

[Remuneration]

But, but... Lincoln freed the slaves and blacks were free to develop a cultural that promoted education as a means for societal advancement.

It's not like the historical treatment of blacks contributes to or informs their current situation.

But I can see why a successful child of Dalit parentage like yourself wouldn't accept that argument.

 

[startswithb]

But, but... Lincoln freed the slaves and blacks were free to develop a cultural that promoted education as a means for societal advancement.

It's not like the historical treatment of blacks contributes to or informs their current situation.

But I can why a successful child of Dalit parentage like yourself wouldn't accept that argument.

lol

 

[Remuneration]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNO72aCnVr0

 

[Jamiu22]

We are at a point in society where the majority of us view each other as equals (race, gender, etc.); therefore, we should frown on advantages given to one subset over the other that upsets this balance.

We are getting there...but we are definitely not there yet; not even close. You come from a position where the world is fair and if everyone just puts in their best, we will all be on equal footing...as someone mentioned earlier, just by virtue of your race, you are either automatically advantaged or disadvantaged in some areas (including education)

Let me give you an example... my dad's an Engineer and I actually grew up in the wealthy part of town (i.e. I was the token black dude), hence my high school was predominantly white. Even though I was a nerd, do you know how many times coaches expected me to play sports and when I ended up sucking at it, they wondered what was truly wrong with me... also some students would walk up to me wanting to buy elicit drugs or asked if I knew someone who sold one. There was also the perception that I had to be cool...very far from it.

Someone mentioned earlier that people expected them to be good at math simply because they were Asian American - while this is not racism, it's prejudice because we prejudge someone solely due to their appearance (probably by the hue of their skin). You might say that you don't do it because you weren't raised that way...but what you have to understand is that it has nothing to do with how you were raised, but more of what you as an individual perceived from the society around you. For instance, if I go to the ATM at 9PM and a younger version of me was standing right behind me - I would be a little more apprehensive as a result of what I had perceived growing up. You really have to condition yourself not to see the color of someone's skin, it's not easy but it's the only way you can ensure you treat everyone fairly.

The problem here is that most people assume that they are not like that, when in fact we all are to some degree. My point is that the general perception of a black or Hispanic person is negative... and this negative perception will most likely follow them the rest of their lives whether the become doctors or not. This has profound implications and definitely has a root in why we have fewer medical practitioners coming from the URM group.

ADCOMS simply get more URMs in their school because they try to rectify this situation and also don't want the school to be all whites and asians... they want a little bit of diversity, which I dont flaw them for - afterall they are searching for completeness in all students education experiences.

Of all the threads I see about URM getting undeserved spots in medical schools, I don't think I have ever come across one that talks about the impact of this URM thing on how a brown/black doctor would be perceived. Unless you personally know the doctor and their academic endeavors, you will automatically assume they got where they are as a result of URM status... which is not the case for a lot of URM docs.

 

[NickNaylor]

Your answers are fine. However, reading this thread as led me to believe that some of the posters in this thread may answer a bit differently...

Would you elaborate on your stance on AA (besides just being against it)?

I don't think AA achieves its goal of assisting those that have experience great injustice or been disadvantaged solely because of their race. Though many African Americans have likely been a victim of racism/discrimination, not ALL have. I think the fact that other ethnicities reap the benefits of AA programs demonstrates that AA has expanded far beyond its original intent.

I think the goal of recruiting URMs is respectable - I definitely believe that people will be more trusting and open with a physician of their own race. That's just the way it is. However, I don't think you need a "check here if URM" box that basically screams: HEY, I'M A MINORITY AND I'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF THE MAN! If the URM thing is supposed to effectively be an AA program (as many here seem to suggest), then why not look to other parts of the application where applicants are invited to talk about their past or share experiences about their lives that they feel disadvantaged them? Why do we automatically assume that all URMs have experienced racism, discrimination, and/or poverty? Why not simply allow the applicants to explain these situations themselves rather than assuming they've lived through these things by virtue of the fact that they're a minority?

I think AA programs are too broad in scope. By recruiting an African American, or a Hispanic, or whatever minority STRICTLY based on race, you assume they have been the victim of discrimination, which isn't necessarily true. In short, I'm fine with people receiving special consideration if they have legitimately been impacted by racism or discrimination. I don't think, however, that it's right to shove all minorities into one box and try and raise them up from sort of hell hole that they may or may not be in.

I think AA is grossly unfair and the benefits no longer outweigh the costs. There's always going to be someone that's woefully ignorant and remains a racist. Does that mean we need to assume that all minorities have experienced injustice at the hands of a small group of individuals that continue to be derps? I don't think so.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't think AA achieves its goal of assisting those that have experience great injustice or been disadvantaged solely because of their race. Though many African Americans have likely been a victim of racism/discrimination, not ALL have. I think the fact that other ethnicities reap the benefits of AA programs demonstrates that AA has expanded far beyond its original intent.

I think the goal of recruiting URMs is respectable - I definitely believe that people will be more trusting and open with a physician of their own race. That's just the way it is. However, I don't think you need a "check here if URM" box that basically screams: HEY, I'M A MINORITY AND I'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF THE MAN! If the URM thing is supposed to effectively be an AA program (as many here seem to suggest), then why not look to other parts of the application where applicants are invited to talk about their past or share experiences about their lives that they feel disadvantaged them? Why do we automatically assume that all URMs have experienced racism, discrimination, and/or poverty? Why not simply allow the applicants to explain these situations themselves rather than assuming they've lived through these things by virtue of the fact that they're a minority?I think AA programs are too broad in scope. By recruiting an African American, or a Hispanic, or whatever minority STRICTLY based on race, you assume they have been the victim of discrimination, which isn't necessarily true. In short, I'm fine with people receiving special consideration if they have legitimately been impacted by racism or discrimination. I don't think, however, that it's right to shove all minorities into one box and try and raise them up from sort of hell hole that they may or may not be in.

I think AA is grossly unfair and the benefits no longer outweigh the costs. There's always going to be someone that's woefully ignorant and remains a racist. Does that mean we need to assume that all minorities have experienced injustice at the hands of a small group of individuals that continue to be derps? I don't think so.

I recruite URM not because they have been victims of discrimination (although many have) and not because they are disadvantaged (some are or have been) but because they are URM and patients *need* them. We also need URM to bring their knowledge of their ethnic/racial communitites to medical school classes and clinics.

To me, not every person who checks the box really represents a URM community. In those cases, I tend to lump them in with the rest of the applicants.

By that, I mean that Hispanic applicants should speak Spanish and have some activities related to that community. African American applicants should have some activities related to that community or be otherwise familiar with issues related to health disparities. Ditto for Native American applicants.

 

[NickNaylor]

I recruite URM not because they have been victims of discrimination (although many have) and not because they are disadvantaged (some are or have been) but because they are URM and patients *need* them. We also need URM to bring their knowledge of their ethnic/racial communitites to medical school classes and clinics.

To me, not every person who checks the box really represents a URM community. In those cases, I tend to lump them in with the rest of the applicants.

By that, I mean that Hispanic applicants should speak Spanish and have some activities related to that community. African American applicants should have some activities related to that community or be otherwise familiar with issues related to health disparities. Ditto for Native American applicants.

This is exactly why I agree with the URM focus for med school admissions but disagree with AA programs in general. I think the URM program addresses a specific need, the most reasonable solution to which is recruiting individuals simply by race.

 

[NickNaylor]

While I applaud your intepretation of the URM box, I do struggle with the bolded statment. This country first and foremost needs quality physicians; does someone's CV (i.e MCAT, GPA, EC, etc.) provide a perfect roadmap to that, absolutely not. But to put less weight on objective measures (i.e GPA/MCAT) in favor of something that has no bearing on the quality of the physician (i.e ethnicity) seems unreasonable; this is panned out by AAMC data that shows the average GPA/MCAT of URM's being admitted as lower than non-URM's. To me the conclusion drawn is that being of URM ethnicity allows for slightly lower objective measures to be acceptable. As for what patients "need"- patients need physicians willing to work in challenging areas (i.e low socioeconomic status/urban/rural areas) and willing to forgo the allures of excellent compensation for less compensation in needed areas. This to me is solved by changing the maldistribution of physicians not the ethnicities.

Have adcoms ever wondered why certain minorities like Asians are able to over represent themselves in higher education and certain minorities can't? A significant portion of this is predicated upon individual, family, and community commitment to education. One might conclude then that AA/URM status is simply a band-aid for the failure of the individuals/families/communities of URM's to push for an education imperative.

I think you're either overly optimistic or ignorant regarding race relations. If you think that all physicians, regardless of race, can relate equally to a minority patient, I think you're patently incorrect.

Also, if URMs with lower stats couldn't handle med school, they wouldn't graduate and wouldn't pass the boards. They are clearly competent, and patients aren't somehow receiving subpar care because someone got a GPA/MCAT below the national average.

 

[LizzyM]

While I applaud your intepretation of the URM box, I do struggle with the bolded statment. This country first and foremost needs quality physicians; does someone's CV (i.e MCAT, GPA, EC, etc.) provide a perfect roadmap to that, absolutely not. But to put less weight on objective measures (i.e GPA/MCAT) in favor of something that has no bearing on the quality of the physician (i.e ethnicity) seems unreasonable; this is panned out by AAMC data that shows the average GPA/MCAT of URM's being admitted as lower than non-URM's. To me the conclusion drawn is that being of URM ethnicity allows for slightly lower objective measures to be acceptable. As for what patients "need"- patients need physicians willing to work in challenging areas (i.e low socioeconomic status/urban/rural areas) and willing to forgo the allures of excellent compensation for less compensation in needed areas. This to me is solved by changing the maldistribution of physicians not the ethnicities.

Have adcoms ever wondered why certain minorities like Asians are able to over represent themselves in higher education and certain minorities can't? A significant portion of this is predicated upon individual, family, and community commitment to education. One might conclude then that AA/URM status is simply a band-aid for the failure of the individuals/families/communities of URM's to push for an education imperative.

You suggest that the quality of a physician is dependent solely on objective measures of academic prowess. I would not agree. An ability to make an emotional connection with a patient, to gain the patient's trust and engage the patient in accepting treatment recommendations and following through is often dependent on factors that can not be measured on a paper and pencil test. Furthermore, the likelihood of successfully completing medical school in 4 years correlates with MCAT score but that curve flattens out at a score of 26 ... Those with a 26 or 27 are as likely to successfully complete medical school as someone with a 32 or 33 so why would we consider the 33 far more worthy of admission. Once you get to that ceiling can't other factors be taken into account as well?

Patients need physicians willing to work in challenging areas and we know that URM physicians, as a population, are more likely to work in underserved areas than non-URM physicians.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I think the difference in opinion is that some people think medical schools exist to make physicians of people with highest mcat/gpa combination, while others think medical schools exist to make physicians who are going to fulfill the mission of the medical school (which is often primary care & underserved areas).

 

[Narmerguy]

I think the difference in opinion is that some people think medical schools exist to make physicians of people with highest mcat/gpa combination, while others think medical schools exist to make physicians who are going to fulfill the mission of the medical school (which is often primary care & underserved areas).

Bingo.

 

[Jamiu22]

You do realize that ORM's like Asians faced many of the same problems you suggest 30-40 years ago, including discrimination in housing/loan markets, and discrepencies inherited wealth. Instead of proceeding with an expectation of society to provide relief, this group worked as individuals, families, and a community to improve their situation and went from a URM to an ORM in higher education in 2 generations. Yes, inherited wealth is important but it's something that is possible to change over multiple generations as evidenced by the Asian community.

The problem is Democrats and Obama have continued to place the impetus on the government/society correcting socioeconomic/cultural disparities. You seem to fall into that group. Me, I'm a firm believer in individual and family responsibility.

Hmmmm....not that curious anymore, I now know where you are coming from...let's keep politics out of it and talk straight facts.

Have adcoms ever wondered why certain minorities like Asians are able to over represent themselves in higher education and certain minorities can't? A significant portion of this is predicated upon individual, family, and community commitment to education. One might conclude then that AA/URM status is simply a band-aid for the failure of the individuals/families/communities of URM's to push for an education imperative.

Afterall Asians did it, why can't blacks/Hispanics? Did I get your point correctly? The latter are failing because they don't take personal responsibilities? Is that right?

Regardless of how smart/intelligent one thinks they are, you have to fully understand and appreciate cultural difference (not as one being superior to the other) in order to be able to record proper patient histories...or appreciate their patients... thoughts of prejudging may make you dismiss an illness.

 

[Jamiu22]

I think the difference in opinion is that some people think medical schools exist to make physicians of people with highest mcat/gpa combination, while others think medical schools exist to make physicians who are going to fulfill the mission of the medical school (which is often primary care & underserved areas).

Well said~!!!!

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM-

I don't suggest that the qualities of a physician are objective measures. I suggest that it's significantly more difficult to determine those qualities with a typical med school application/EC/community involvement. If you think the ability to make an emotional connection with a patient or gain trust is something that can be determined from a CV or application I think that is a bit naïve, in the same way it is just as difficult on residency applications even when students have had patient encounters. When you look at subjective factors to determine admissions, you definitely open yourself up to more criticism because these evaluations are purely subjective and what one person/institution values is not in line with another. I also didn't suggest that letting those students with lower scores lessens their chance to complete med school. What I did state was that if 2 students apply and student 1 has better stats than #2, with similar subjective merits, but student 2 is a URM and gets accepted, that is where we need to take a look at the process.

All else being equal, a URM has a different life experience than a non-URM with an identical file. Therefore, the URMs file is not subjectively equal to the non-URM applicant's file.

Fact: Ethnic minorities are more comfortable with doctors they trust and most ethnic miniorities trust doctors who are "like" them more than they trust those who are not like them. The characteristics would engender such trust are evident on interview. Some ethnic minorities are ORM and some are URM. We are trying to assure that there are more physicians to meet the needs of patients who have a hard time finding a physician with whom they can identify.

 

[Jamiu22]

Jamiu22-

I don’t think there is anything inappropriate about suggesting that the model of success used by one ethnic minority which was previously a URM in American medicine in improving it’s representation in the field and overcoming the so called systemic biases and financial difficulties that plague minorities in this country. The society based solutions that have been utilized to increase the representation of AA/Hispanic in medicine over the past few decades have not been the panacea that everyone thought they would be and my suggestion to look at another approach is more than reasonable. Do I believe that certain politicians play up the need for societal intervention in reducing disparities, yes, but I don’t believe there is long term data to support the efficacy of said measures.

LizzyM-

I don’t suggest that the qualities of a physician are objective measures. I suggest that it’s significantly more difficult to determine those qualities with a typical med school application/EC/community involvement. If you think the ability to make an emotional connection with a patient or gain trust is something that can be determined from a CV or application I think that is a bit naïve, in the same way it is just as difficult on residency applications even when students have had patient encounters. When you look at subjective factors to determine admissions, you definitely open yourself up to more criticism because these evaluations are purely subjective and what one person/institution values is not in line with another. I also didn’t suggest that letting those students with lower scores lessens their chance to complete med school. What I did state was that if 2 students apply and student 1 has better stats than #2, with similar subjective merits, but student 2 is a URM and gets accepted, that is where we need to take a look at the process.

Wagy27, that sounds like a more reasonable arguement.... one which I truly can't argue against, as you said, there's no data to support the model of educational success seen in one ethnic population vs the lack thereof witnessed in another.

I know you are trying to rational your argument using specific examples, but using that very specific examples falls shorts when you try to classify why a certain segment of the population is where they are at... you can't do that because there are a myriad of situations that caused them to be in that condition - which you didn't deeply examine...

on the surface, your argument makes logical sense.. but when you look at the bigger picture, its full of holes; holes that can't be simplified into "this or that" as the reason why these people are supposedly educationally better than that people.

I know this is getting off topic completely... but on the AMCAS system, there's the disadvantaged status - which applies to all; and then there's the URM status...you can't argue that they aren't under-represented right?

Let's say the 17k student's that apply to medical school every year get's in based on GPA/MCAT alone....and they setup an additional 200 spots for URM students... just to fill this deficiency, would you have a problem with this approach? Because you know there's an intangible value in having URMs in medicine that GPA/MCAT don't account for. We all agree that URMs are so called "URMs" because of socio-economic/cultural/whateva factors, and as long as these persist, they will always be URM; so as a result do you say: ignore all that and just keep on the 17k students who got in just on MCAT/GPA alone?

 

[MCAT guy]

I think the difference in opinion is that some people think medical schools exist to make physicians of people with highest mcat/gpa combination, while others think medical schools exist to make physicians who are going to fulfill the mission of the medical school.

Agreed. And very well said.

Pre-meds think the world of GPA/MCAT. They are important, but certainly are not what makes an excellent physician.

To use a sports analogy, it isn't always the player with the best "stats" (speed/strength/etc) that becomes great. There are intangibles. And I think that is the difficulty of medical admissions, how do you measure the intangibles?

 

[Remuneration]

Congratulations wagy on taking offense and missing the point. You claim the need for familial and personal responsibility and cite Asians as examples. Great, but the proliferation of Asian scientists and doctors is due in large part to the influx of highly-educated Asians and Asians from familial and cultural backgrounds that place emphasis on the importance of education in societal advancement.

Throughout their history in America, blacks have faced the stigma of lesser intelligence. They have faced and continued to face segregation in education. Government and media organizations have long worked to undermine black and urban poor solidarity and equality movements and organizations and allies (NAACP, Panthers, NOI, NAACP, among others) and still do (or was the treatment of ACORN reasonable to you?). Various parties (esp Republicans) have long engaged in the disenfranchisement of black voters at the state and local levels. Outcomes in the criminal justice system are likewise still highly biased againsts, esp poor, urban blacks, and the police force often serves to intimidate blacks on the individual and organizational level.

But yes, they should just get their acts together and pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else. 🙄

 

[LizzyM]

So you look at female applicant's file and automatically presume that the subjective life experience is of more value than a male applicant's file? That seems pretty biased.

As for the female patients, I have run into this a few times over the course of my training. There have been instances where a male patient wants to be treated by only male physicians (which I am not). We as a staff explain to the patient that this is not possible and if they would like that care they need to transfer their care elsewhere. Though we have the ability to placate their demand, we don't believe that we can accomodate this. Why then do we accept the same requests from female patients? Instead of pandering to patients who need to see someone of the same gender to "trust" them, shouldn't we be working to educate and show patients that they can trust physicians of all genders. Trust is earned regardless of gender, and when I look for a physician (as a woman), I don't look for someone of same gender, I look for a well educated and up to date physician who can communicate his ideas and care plan to me. You may argue the care plan may be better communicated by a woman, and it is possible.

What do you make of this?

Were they taking your grandpappy's seat?

Were they less worthy because they were less likely to finish medical school (to have babies)?

Should women be happy to have a well trained man take care of them even if they'd prefer to receive care (particularly primary care and general OB/GYN) from a woman?

 

[MCAT guy]

My question is why aren't we spending more time and resources on promoting those qualities in URM communities rather than bandaids like disparate admissions processes. If you solve the problem upstream there is no need for patches like the current one downstream. How to achieve that, I'm not sure, I just don't think tertiary management of a problem is the solution.

Both would probably help.

But tertiary management exists nonetheless. It serves a role albeit not perfect by any means.

 

[MCAT guy]

So you look at female applicant's file and automatically presume that the subjective life experience is of more value than a male applicant's file? That seems pretty biased.

As for the female patients, I have run into this a few times over the course of my training. There have been instances where a male patient wants to be treated by only male physicians (which I am not). We as a staff explain to the patient that this is not possible and if they would like that care they need to transfer their care elsewhere. Though we have the ability to placate their demand, we don't believe that we can accomodate this. Why then do we accept the same requests from female patients? Instead of pandering to patients who need to see someone of the same gender to "trust" them, shouldn't we be working to educate and show patients that they can trust physicians of all genders. Trust is earned regardless of gender, and when I look for a physician (as a woman), I don't look for someone of same gender, I look for a well educated and up to date physician who can communicate his ideas and care plan to me. You may argue the care plan may be better communicated by a woman, and it is possible.

Well played by LizzyM!

 

[Remuneration]

And the whole point of this stupid thread is that primary intervention is the ultimate goal, but is unlikely to be meaningfully addressed in the foreseeable future. The tertiary fix produces physicians and health care teams better suited to addressing health care disparities and contributes to the primary goal by producing well-educated, well-financed physician role models to the community.

 

[LizzyM]

I've ever said that the life experiences of URMs or women are better, only that they are different than the experiences of ORMs and men. One goal in med admissions is to have variety (diversity) in the life experiences among the students with the hope that students will share their cultural experiences with other students so that all students may become clinicians with an understanding of other cultures and how this plays into care of patients from those cultures.

With regard to gyn-onc, I know both male & female gyn-onc fellows but I also believe that race is far less important to patients at the tertiary care level. It is in primary care where long term relationships grow and where distrust of "the system" is most profound.

 

[MCAT guy]

The problem with these debates is that both sides have good points, but the system is how it is. Accept it and work in the system.

I don't think complaining helps. If you really want to form an activism group and change the system, then I'd say that's positive. I'm not quite sure if I understand the group that says, "It's not right. But I'm not willing to do anything about it."

 

[Jamiu22]

The problem with these debates is that both sides have good points, but the system is how it is. Accept it and work in the system.

I don't think complaining helps. If you really want to form an activism group and change the system, then I'd say that's positive. I'm not quite sure if I understand the group that says, "It's not right. But I'm not willing to do anything about it."

he he....true

 

[Cleavername]

The problem with these debates is that both sides have good points, but the system is how it is. Accept it and work in the system.

I don't think complaining helps. If you really want to form an activism group and change the system, then I'd say that's positive. I'm not quite sure if I understand the group that says, "It's not right. But I'm not willing to do anything about it."

u pretty much indirectly agree with what i said a long time ago on this thread, as ORM people become more influential in this country, we will see where this is going to go.

if u think about the future, i am pretty sure this urm situation is most likely to go down one way...

 

[bookfreak89]

u pretty much indirectly agree with what i said a long time ago on this thread, as ORM people become more influential in this country, we will see where this is going to go.

if u think about the future, i am pretty sure this urm situation is most likely to go down one way...

Unless you have great and cost-effective ways to fix the problems at the K-12 level, then no, it will not "go down one way."

 

[RogueUnicorn]

u pretty much indirectly agree with what i said a long time ago on this thread, as ORM people become more influential in this country, we will see where this is going to go.

if u think about the future, i am pretty sure this urm situation is most likely to go down one way...

ah yes.. because as a race, white folks aren't influential at all right now..

 

[Cleavername]

Unless you have great and cost-effective ways to fix the problems at the K-12 level, then no, it will not "go down one way."

ah yes.. because as a race, white folks aren't influential at all right now..

hahah not one of u got my meaning. i suppouse its a good thing.

 

[bookfreak89]

hahah not one of u got my meaning. i suppouse its a good thing.

Okay, then what do you mean?

 

[LizzyM]

LCME, the body that accredits medical schools, has specific requirements regarding diversity. You can find the relevant statement on the right hand side of the 8th page of the following pdf (page 4, column 2 of the document because the introductory pages aren't numbered):
http://www.lcme.org/functions2007jun.pdf

Schools act to ensure a diverse student body (and a diverse faculty, covered in another section of the document) because it is the right thing to do and because accreditation could be at risk if they fail to do so.

 

[NickNaylor]

LCME, the body that accredits medical schools, has specific requirements regarding diversity. You can find the relevant statement on the right hand side of the 8th page of the following pdf (page 4, column 2 of the document because the introductory pages aren't numbered):
http://www.lcme.org/functions2007jun.pdf

Schools act to ensure a diverse student body (and a diverse faculty, covered in another section of the document) because it is the right thing to do and because accreditation could be at risk if they fail to do so.

Right according to what?

 

[Cleavername]

Right according to what?

u sir, are a G 🙂.

 

[LizzyM]

Right according to what?

Because it would be unjust to limit enrollment to white men whose daddies are doctors, lawyers or CEOs although we could limit enrollment to that category of applicant and fill the seats twice over.

 

[NickNaylor]

Because it would be unjust to limit enrollment to white men whose daddies are doctors, lawyers or CEOs although we could limit enrollment to that category of applicant and fill the seats twice over.

Well, obviously we wouldn't want that. As I said, I agree with the initiative to recruit URMs because it addresses a specific need. I just don't know if I necessarily agree that that's the "right" thing to do in an abstract sense, beyond the fact that it addresses a specific need.

 

[LizzyM]

Well, obviously we wouldn't want that. As I said, I agree with the initiative to recruit URMs because it addresses a specific need. I just don't know if I necessarily agree that that's the "right" thing to do in an abstract sense, beyond the fact that it addresses a specific need.

Addressing the needs of the US population is the right thing to do.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Addressing the needs of the US population is the right thing to do.

I feel like this argument was already hashed out to its usual dead end somewhere in the prior 310 posts.

 

[alopathik]

one way to start a **** show - talk about race in anything.

i don't think OP's post was inherently racist or negative to URMs. but this is the wrong place to ask your question. this is the pre-med board. go to the medical student board and ask - there probably are some URM at med school who would gladly answer your questions.

but, OP, understand that anytime you ask a question like this people are going to get super defensive. and then again, why does it matter?

what does "qualified" even mean? both grades and test scores are highly correlated with wealth. i guarantee you if i didn't have the tutors in high school or the money to afford a mcat prep course i would not be as "qualified" as i am now. ultimately, grades and test scores do not determine if you will become a competent physician.

listen, i don't think the current admissions system is ideal or even good. it's barely functional. med schools admit a ton of type A gunners that want to be RADAR physicians, and none of these specialties address the crucial shortage of rural and primary care physicians. but what is the alternative? you need a universal test to compare students, and your best students will always be drawn to the highest paying specialties.

anyways, instead of bickering over race, we should be asking questions like how many of our med students go to underserved rural areas? how many students will become PCPs? who can help us lower our soaring healthcare costs? it's not about giving up your seat, rather think about working with the most talented students in the world, learning from them, bettering yourself and makign a difference.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

So apparently it's okay to use a denegrating term as long as it's to use a point; would the same have been the case if I had used a slur towards AA or Hispanics or is it simply because you used a lesser known derogatory insult?

Your posts read as nothing more than the whinings and rhetoric of someone so consumed by presumed injustices/disparities that their view has become myopic. Yes, many Asians that immigrated were educated but many were not, a misconception that the majority were all highly educated. Despite this, whether educated or not, they pushed their children to embrace education and I agree that is rooted in familial and cultural backgrounds. My question is why aren't we spending more time and resources on promoting those qualities in URM communities rather than bandaids like disparate admissions processes. If you solve the problem upstream there is no need for patches like the current one downstream. How to achieve that, I'm not sure, I just don't think tertiary management of a problem is the solution.

Most of your posts on this topic are just plain wrong. Many Asians that immigrated here were well off and were able to push their children into careers that pay well. Asians have a higher overall income than whites. And no poor asians still haven't overcome by bootstraps like the Hmong population in the U.S African Immigrants have the highest percentage of college educated among their population and as I said to immigrate to America you have to be pretty talented to come here.

You ask that we shouldn't put a baindaid on a problem why not? Just because a problem can be solved in another method doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything about it. Also the solution you call for will require way more resources than what ADCOMs and many others are capable of. Also few people care about the issues that the community faces since the only reason you address the issue is because a small proportion of the allopathic pre-med pop gets in at a higher % with stats that are on avg with osteopathic students.

You offer no solution to the overlying cause of the issue other than saying it should be fixed and we shouldn't use baindaids even when the baindaids help a bit.

 

[LizzyM]

Read the section, it's pretty vague, simply stating policies need to be in place. Question, what about schools like Morehouse, Howard, etc. that have a student population which is completely disproportionate to the US population and does not have as much ethnic diversity. Why do they get a pass?

Every school develops a mission statement and develops admission plans to meet that mission. Even the historically black medical schools have non-African American students and therefore can claim to be diverse while maintaining their mission to prepare physicians to serve the underserved.

I posted the following over 4 years ago and it is still true today.

Q: If no URM were admitted to medical school, what proportion of those non-URM who do not matriculate in a given year (are not admitted to any school) would still be without an offer of admission?

A: I don't have my handy tables with me but I'm going to venture an estimate: The proportion of non-matriculants who would still be sitting out in the cold if no URM were admitted to any US medical school (including Howard and the other historically black institutions) is ~89%.

(about half of the ~35,000 applicants per year are not admitted to any school. About 10% of those who are admitted are URM and 10% of those who are not admitted are URM. So, currently ~15,750 non-URM do not get admitted to any school. If there were no URM, the number of non-URM who would not be admitted to any school would be ~14,000)



So we could eliminate admission of any URM, including some who are among the most academically qualified and we would only free up an additional 1,750 seats and 14,000 applicants would still be crying that someone grabbed up their seat.