Open discussion/thoughts concerning URM as a criteria

[Maxprime]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I always see threads hijacked (I've probably done it too) and sidetracked by URM discussions. Why don't we all discuss it here in a civil fashion? If in one thread, it's easier to moderate. I won't bother tossing in opinions yet in case the mods don't like the idea.

 

[TheRealMD]

Because there's a forum for that?

 

[liripez]

I think been an URM would only take you so far...but that by itself won't do the job..I am an URM, and I am still struggling and waiting like everybody else

 

[TheRealMD]

Ok, let's have an honest discussion. When you look at the average MCAT/GPA for URMs, they are low. So "average" URM applicants by normal standards stick out like a thumb when you compare them to other URMs. Now, because for the most part anyone with a 30+ and a decent GPA can potentially do well in med school, they are highly desirable because they bring "diversity" to a class (whatever that means).

Not sure what else there is to add besides having a high MCAT/GPA doesn't entitle you to any school.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Ok, let's have an honest discussion. When you look at the average MCAT/GPA for URMs, they are low. So "average" URM applicants by normal standards stick out like a thumb when you compare them to other URMs. Now, because for the most part anyone with a 30+ and a decent GPA can potentially do well in med school, they are highly desirable because they bring "diversity" to a class (whatever that means).

Not sure what else there is to add besides having a high MCAT/GPA doesn't entitle you to any school.

I think we should get rid of URM altogether.. I do think though, that those with a disadvantaged background should get some leeway. There are some Blacks and hispanics who had all the opportunities in the world, and their are some whites and asians who grew up with a tough life. I also think that they should make it harder for you to prove you are disadvantaged. IE just because your parents didnt buy you a car or pay for your college doesnt mean you are disadvantaged.

 

[drizzt3117]

 

[RandomBlackManX]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=220

 

[RySerr21]

I think been an URM would only take you so far...but that by itself won't do the job..I am an URM, and I am still struggling and waiting like everybody else

i know a URM that is going to USC now and she had a 3.7 but a 24 MCAT. she also received interviews at schools like UCSF, UCSD, and stanford. a white male with those scores wouldn't even be considered for a secondary. so i think it differs from person to person. i also think she was first generation college grad and her parents had come from puerto rico. that no doubt helped

 

[Maxprime]

How do people feel about changing from race-based to socioeconomic-based? That would solve a lot of things I see wrong with the current system.

I think that separating this thread to the URM section is precisely the kind of problem I have with URM being an issue. We're all pre-allos here, why can't we (URM's & non-URM's, heck - even ORM's!) discuss it?

I think it's pretty obvious that most people will either be very-pro or very-anti URM's and will have pretty solid opinions that we can't change. I think, in light of that, we should focus our efforts on a discussion to change to a system people can agree to.

 

[TheRealMD]

I think we should get rid of URM altogether.. I do think though, that those with a disadvantaged background should get some leeway. There are some Blacks and hispanics who had all the opportunities in the world, and their are some whites and asians who grew up with a tough life. I also think that they should make it harder for you to prove you are disadvantaged. IE just because your parents didnt buy you a car or pay for your college doesnt mean you are disadvantaged.

1) Disadvantaged students do get leeway? It's marked on their AMCAS application.
2) As for blacks & hispanics vs whites and asians, I don't think it's a good idea to just bunch people together. No one here said because you're a URM, you get in free.
3) Don't confuse URM with disadvantaged.

I think that's all for now.

 

[1956Goldtop]

That seems reasonable, but the purpose of AA/URM status is not to give disadvantaged students a better chance of getting into medical school. That is what the disadvantaged option on the AMCAS form is for (though it arguably doesn't help very much). Rather its purpose is to increase diversity in Medical schools such that their breakdown of ethnic minority students matches that of the outside world. Of course not all URM students have had it hard (that is a ridiculous thing to claim), and I can vouch with that with my experiences of all the URM students from my high school who have found themselves at the most premier institutions though their parents make 6 or 7 figures. Even still, the goal of increasing diversity is still met regardless of socioeconomic status. Yes some people are hurt by URMs and AA when it comes to medical school admissions, but in the grand scheme of things, it hurts VERY little. Think about the number of URMs that matriculate to medical schools. If those spots were available, its not like it would be of great help to the ORM or ethnic majority applicant pool. Even with AA and URM status, the dichotomy between real world diversity and medical school diversity is overwhelming.

 

[Maxprime]

That seems reasonable, but the purpose of AA/URM status is not to give disadvantaged students a better chance of getting into medical school. That is what the disadvantaged option on the AMCAS form is for (though it arguably doesn't help very much). Rather its purpose is to increase diversity in Medical schools such that their breakdown of ethnic minority students matches that of the outside world. Of course not all URM students have had it hard, and I can vouch with that with my experiences of all the URM students from my high school who have found themselves at the most premier institutions though their parents make 6 or 7 figures.

I believe that this penalizes students that have done everything right just because they were born with skin color that is common in the US. I think it is important to recruit URM's and try to keep our profession open to all, but I think efforts should be spent recruiting - that everyone should be held to the same requirements when it comes to ethnic background as a criteria.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

1) Disadvantaged students do get leeway? It's marked on their AMCAS application.
2) As for blacks & hispanics vs whites and asians, I don't think it's a good idea to just bunch people together. No one here said because you're a URM, you get in free.
3) Don't confuse URM with disadvantaged.

I think that's all for now.

well if this is the case then I think URM shouldnt be a criteria. As awhite male I would have no problem seeing a hispanic or black orasian dr. I am sure most ppl are the same way.

 

[sosarah]

I think we should get rid of URM altogether.. I do think though, that those with a disadvantaged background should get some leeway. There are some Blacks and hispanics who had all the opportunities in the world, and their are some whites and asians who grew up with a tough life. I also think that they should make it harder for you to prove you are disadvantaged. IE just because your parents didnt buy you a car or pay for your college doesnt mean you are disadvantaged.

AMEN! I think that the existence of URM status only further separates those who are trying / deserve to be considered equals.

 

[Maxprime]

I have completely honest question - please don't read this as attacking in any way. I'm curious if anyone knows how the discussion goes in the ADCOM meetings. You have an applicant with such and such stats - does someone literally say, "Note that he/she is a Plutonian."?

 

[1956Goldtop]

well if this is the case then I think URM shouldnt be a criteria. As awhite male I would have no problem seeing a hispanic or black orasian dr. I am sure most ppl are the same way.

Most if not all Asian ethnic groups are not considered URMs.

EDIT: you weren't necessarily implying they were. My bad.

 

[1956Goldtop]

Nobody is saying that URM/AA is fair. It is an attempt to right the wrongs which have caused such a large discrepancy in higher education diversity in the first place. It is a means to an end and will likely remain in effect until gaps in ethnic diversity are closed.

 

[Maxprime]

Nobody is saying that URM/AA is fair. It is an attempt to right the wrongs which have caused such a large discrepancy in higher education diversity in the first place. It is a means to an end and will likely remain in effect until gaps in ethnic diversity are closed.

But weren't the "wrongs" the use of color as a factor for admissions? If URM's get over-represented in medicine, does this justify the new URM's to do the same thing?

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Most if not all Asian ethnic groups are not considered URMs.

EDIT: you weren't necessarily implying they were. My bad.

yup, i wasnt.

I think we should just realize that if URM is a criteria that its nothing wecan change. Just do the best YOU can and go from there. Dont worryabout everyone else

 

[TheRealMD]

But weren't the "wrongs" the use of color as a factor for admissions? If URM's get over-represented in medicine, does this justify the new URM's to do the same thing?

Probably. I mean, it's a band-aid solution to a problem that starts much earlier.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

does anyone realize that whites are technically URMS. I think whites make up like 70 somepercent of America, and 57% of the physicians.

 

[Maxprime]

Probably. I mean, it's a band-aid solution to a problem that starts much earlier.

I don't feel like numbers would justify this action, though - not just in my eyes, but I think society would have a huge problem with it.

 

[sosarah]

does anyone realize that whites are technically URMS. I think whites make up like 70 somepercent of America, and 57% of the physicians.

I was just about to mention the same thing. I scanned the URM forum and on there It is actually listed that whites make up 74.7% of the general American population, but only 36.7% of physicians in 2004 (they cited wikipedia and AAMC, respectively).

 

[ChubbyChaser]

hmmm 36.7% seems REALLy low, are you sure its not 56.7%?

 

[Maxprime]

hmmm 36.7% seems REALLy low, are you sure its not 56.7%?

It is 69% according to the AAMC (white non-hispanic). The US (2000 Census) was 75% white non-hispanic - so it's pretty close. The actual over-represented group is Asians - they make up 3% of the US population and 15% of physicians. But I doubt that comes as much of a shock. Given the possible negative stereotype in the admissions process, it really sucks that so many asians have physicians that are parents.

 

[liripez]

ryserr21:
I'm glad that's her case, but it's certainly not mine..and I am Puerto Rican too..so tell her to hook me up

 

[sosarah]

Here is the link to the post in the URM forum I was talking about:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=445413

 

[BrokenGlass]

It is 69% according to the AAMC (white non-hispanic). The US (2000 Census) was 75% white non-hispanic - so it's pretty close. The actual over-represented group is Asians - they make up 3% of the US population and 15% of physicians. But I doubt that comes as much of a shock. Given the possible negative stereotype in the admissions process, it really sucks that so many asians have physicians that are parents.

I think you mean many asians have parents who are physicians.

 

[Maxprime]

I think you mean many asians have parents who are physicians.

Haha - good catch. With work schedules the way they are in some specialties, this is arguable though. 🙁

 

[Rotinaj1985]

I don't think there should be any outside "shaping" of the class. Why wouldn't a school just want to get the most qualified, no matter how the path to get there? Wouldn't that make it easier?

How could anyone argue with a system that only accepted the best that they could?

 

[Crixivan]

I don't think there should be any outside "shaping" of the class. Why wouldn't a school just want to get the most qualified, no matter how the path to get there? Wouldn't that make it easier?

How could anyone argue with a system that only accepted the best that they could?

It makes your school look better on paper if it operates separate waitlists for different types of applicants so that the student body matches the characteristics of the population at large. Giving someone a boost based on race is legal for med school adcoms. At one school I visited, they boasted about their diversity quotas and cited that meeting diversity requirements enhanced their ability to obtain government subsidy for some of the improvements that they were trying to make to their curriculum.

The main argument coming from the URM camp is that some ethnicities would prefer a physician similar to them. Whether they would prefer that doctor to one of a different race who was perhaps more qualified is unknown to me.

 

[etf]

i've got nothing to add; i'm just thankful that no one put up a stupid picture of a flame suit yet.

 

[asm436]

It makes your school look better on paper if it operates separate waitlists for different types of applicants so that the student body matches the characteristics of the population at large. Giving someone a boost based on race is legal for med school adcoms. At one school I visited, they boasted about their diversity quotas and cited that meeting diversity requirements enhanced their ability to obtain government subsidy for some of the improvements that they were trying to make to their curriculum.

The main argument coming from the URM camp is that some ethnicities would prefer a physician similar to them. Whether they would prefer that doctor to one of a different race who was perhaps more qualified is unknown to me.

I think the fundamental issue that brings about such dispute about URMs is that people begin to argue the qualifications of personal applicants instead of their opinions on the fairness of the application process. URM does not equate to less qualified. None of our patients will know our MCAT scores or undergrad GPA...our med school professors probably won't either. The capabilities that will make us all good doctors are further honed and developed after we get into medical school.
It is dangerous to enter the profession with such great prejudices concerning a whole group of your colleagues. The intentions of using URM status as criteria have been described repeatedly...leading back to patient preference and statistics on the unequal treatment of minority patients by these "perhaps more qualified" doctors. If we come to a consensus that these reasons are not enough, then we can finally say that we do not support a patient centered practice of service to all.

 

[flaahless]

I don't think there should be any outside "shaping" of the class. Why wouldn't a school just want to get the most qualified, no matter how the path to get there? Wouldn't that make it easier?

How could anyone argue with a system that only accepted the best that they could?

Haha, I'm 2 coronas deep, you're about to kill my buzz.

1. How can you tell that one applicant is better than another? Higher scores in the pre-req courses, higher MCAT? AAMC publishes the data for MCAT and GPA, but the subjective criteria, such as passion and purpose, are conveniently left out. To quote Dean Zic at Vanderbilt, "an MCAT and a high gpa don't determine the quality of physician that you're going to be." Therefore, schools really do look at the application holistically to pick the applicants that they truly feel will be the best physicians and enhance the learning experience of the other students.

2. I am certain that UCSF could have a class full of students who average 3.9/36+, ie: Wash U. But UCSF doesn't because they want a diverse class: culturally, economically, socially, politically etc. They want students with amazing stats, students without amazing stats, students that will go into research, others that will go into primary care, others that will go into health policy... etc.

As far as URM vs. socioeconomic status goes, I think both should be considered, with most of the emphasis placed on experience working with a population and personal obstacles that have been overcome.

Please keep in mind that the health of the underserved community is MUCH more than mere access to healthcare. Rather, it consists of economic stability, education and community leadership. And an individual's contributions to these critical facets of community health can not be enumerated by "stats."

A lot of premeds have the anecdotal story of URM X who was rich and benefitted from AA. Well for me, and many other URMs, the story is completely opposite.

 

[flaahless]

I think the fundamental issue that brings about such dispute about URMs is that people begin to argue the qualifications of personal applicants instead of their opinions on the fairness of the application process. URM does not equate to less qualified. None of our patients will know our MCAT scores or undergrad GPA...our med school professors probably won't either. The capabilities that will make us all good doctors are further honed and developed after we get into medical school.
It is dangerous to enter the profession with such great prejudices concerning a whole group of your colleagues. The intentions of using URM status as criteria have been described repeatedly...leading back to patient preference and statistics on the unequal treatment of minority patients by these "perhaps more qualified" doctors. If we come to a consensus that these reasons are not enough, then we can finally say that we do not support a patient centered practice of service to all.

Very well put. 👍

 

[justme456]

I think the fundamental issue that brings about such dispute about URMs is that people begin to argue the qualifications of personal applicants instead of their opinions on the fairness of the application process. URM does not equate to less qualified. None of our patients will know our MCAT scores or undergrad GPA...our med school professors probably won't either. The capabilities that will make us all good doctors are further honed and developed after we get into medical school.
It is dangerous to enter the profession with such great prejudices concerning a whole group of your colleagues. The intentions of using URM status as criteria have been described repeatedly...leading back to patient preference and statistics on the unequal treatment of minority patients by these "perhaps more qualified" doctors. If we come to a consensus that these reasons are not enough, then we can finally say that we do not support a patient centered practice of service to all.

 

[FutureMD345]

To those who are saying whites are technically URMs: Do you know what the "M" in "URM" stands for? 😕

I'm not a URM applicant, but from looking at MDapps, I think one reason that the URMs who get in with lower (but competent) statistics is that they show a history of giving back to their community. Since these communities are generally underserved, many of thse physicians go on to address the grave disparities in health-care delivery in our country.

 

[Crixivan]

I think the fundamental issue that brings about such dispute about URMs is that people begin to argue the qualifications of personal applicants instead of their opinions on the fairness of the application process. URM does not equate to less qualified. None of our patients will know our MCAT scores or undergrad GPA...our med school professors probably won't either. The capabilities that will make us all good doctors are further honed and developed after we get into medical school.
It is dangerous to enter the profession with such great prejudices concerning a whole group of your colleagues. The intentions of using URM status as criteria have been described repeatedly...leading back to patient preference and statistics on the unequal treatment of minority patients by these "perhaps more qualified" doctors. If we come to a consensus that these reasons are not enough, then we can finally say that we do not support a patient centered practice of service to all.

You'll note that I said "perhaps" in an effort to instigate diplomacy, and I did not comment on the use of the MCAT or GPA as a measure of physician quality, nor did I suggest that URM's with lower numbers were inherently less qualified than non-URM's. If you have statistics that suggest non-URM physicians treat URM patients unequally, please post them. Such assertions are prejudicial and offensive to me and my colleagues.

URM does not equate to less qualified. Others here merely assert that all applicants deserve the right to be judged by the same criteria which constitutes the quality of the applicant. We all know that there are exists an excess of qualified applicants in the US given the fact that Americans go offshore to earn MD's and match into US residency programs with success, so nobody is suggesting that URM's who excel on their boards are not qualified.

 

[asm436]

You'll note that I said "perhaps" in an effort to instigate diplomacy, and I did not comment on the use of the MCAT or GPA as a measure of physician quality, nor did I suggest that URM's with lower numbers were inherently less qualified than non-URM's. If you have statistics that suggest non-URM physicians treat URM patients unequally, please post them. Such assertions are prejudicial and offensive to me and my colleagues.

URM does not equate to less qualified. Others here merely assert that all applicants deserve the right to be judged by the same criteria which constitutes the quality of the applicant. We all know that there are exists an excess of qualified applicants in the US given the fact that Americans go offshore to earn MD's and match into US residency programs with success, so nobody is suggesting that URM's who excel on their boards are not qualified.

thanks for clarifying your view. I'm sorry statistics are hurtful and they are not meant to be used for prejudice, but in fact, to prevent it!! Next time I review some old articles, I'll post some others (I'm a public health junkie), but I figured this was fitting because threads like these make such findings not surprising at all.

http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=184

 

[Crixivan]

http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=184

Interesting med student study from 2000. I'd like to see them follow up with this cohort to see the medical training that they've received since then has impacted their viewpoints.

 

[RandomBlackManX]

Haha, I'm 2 coronas deep, you're about to kill my buzz.

1. How can you tell that one applicant is better than another? Higher scores in the pre-req courses, higher MCAT? AAMC publishes the data for MCAT and GPA, but the subjective criteria, such as passion and purpose, are conveniently left out. To quote Dean Zic at Vanderbilt, "an MCAT and a high gpa don't determine the quality of physician that you're going to be." Therefore, schools really do look at the application holistically to pick the applicants that they truly feel will be the best physicians and enhance the learning experience of the other students.

2. I am certain that UCSF could have a class full of students who average 3.9/36+, ie: Wash U. But UCSF doesn't because they want a diverse class: culturally, economically, socially, politically etc. They want students with amazing stats, students without amazing stats, students that will go into research, others that will go into primary care, others that will go into health policy... etc.

As far as URM vs. socioeconomic status goes, I think both should be considered, with most of the emphasis placed on experience working with a population and personal obstacles that have been overcome.

Please keep in mind that the health of the underserved community is MUCH more than mere access to healthcare. Rather, it consists of economic stability, education and community leadership. And an individual's contributions to these critical facets of community health can not be enumerated by "stats."

A lot of premeds have the anecdotal story of URM X who was rich and benefitted from AA. Well for me, and many other URMs, the story is completely opposite.

Well said my friend. Well said.

 

[uglyjohn]

Haha, I'm 2 coronas deep, you're about to kill my buzz.

1. How can you tell that one applicant is better than another? Higher scores in the pre-req courses, higher MCAT? AAMC publishes the data for MCAT and GPA, but the subjective criteria, such as passion and purpose, are conveniently left out. To quote Dean Zic at Vanderbilt, "an MCAT and a high gpa don't determine the quality of physician that you're going to be." Therefore, schools really do look at the application holistically to pick the applicants that they truly feel will be the best physicians and enhance the learning experience of the other students.

2. I am certain that UCSF could have a class full of students who average 3.9/36+, ie: Wash U. But UCSF doesn't because they want a diverse class: culturally, economically, socially, politically etc. They want students with amazing stats, students without amazing stats, students that will go into research, others that will go into primary care, others that will go into health policy... etc.

As far as URM vs. socioeconomic status goes, I think both should be considered, with most of the emphasis placed on experience working with a population and personal obstacles that have been overcome.

Please keep in mind that the health of the underserved community is MUCH more than mere access to healthcare. Rather, it consists of economic stability, education and community leadership. And an individual's contributions to these critical facets of community health can not be enumerated by "stats."

A lot of premeds have the anecdotal story of URM X who was rich and benefitted from AA. Well for me, and many other URMs, the story is completely opposite.

Wow, you've got accepted to UCSD, USC, UCI and interviewed at UCSF and UCLA. Very impressive. Wow!!!

 

[Rotinaj1985]

Haha, I'm 2 coronas deep, you're about to kill my buzz.

1. How can you tell that one applicant is better than another? Higher scores in the pre-req courses, higher MCAT? AAMC publishes the data for MCAT and GPA, but the subjective criteria, such as passion and purpose, are conveniently left out. To quote Dean Zic at Vanderbilt, "an MCAT and a high gpa don't determine the quality of physician that you're going to be." Therefore, schools really do look at the application holistically to pick the applicants that they truly feel will be the best physicians and enhance the learning experience of the other students.

Did I say look solely at MCAT and GPA? What I said was not to shape the class. The LORs and experience should definitely be considered. The problem is by adding a criteria that has nothing, NOTHING, to do with how good a physician you're going to be, solely for the effect of shaping the class to be "diverse". I could understand having a preference for URMs if it were shown that URMs were for some reason better physicians. The claim that people prefer to go to a doctor that resembles them, if true, is a shame, but by making it so they can go to the one that resembles them, doesn't that just continue to promote, if not endorse, bigotry? The truth is the only reason bigotry is still around is because there is not enough interaction amongst different groups to realize that we're really all the same. Or atleast the differences are so small.

Furthermore, Diversity for the sake of Diversity is a sham. Diversity would be more meaningful if it arose on its own. A manipulated diversity does get the job done, however, at the same time it leaves a mark on everyone that says this man or woman couldn't do it on their own, they needed someone else's help. Now, if I were the one benefiting from it I would probably be okay with it. Which, I guess is like saying I'd have a conflict of interest. Right? Well, Flahless, thats kind of my way of saying that you're too invested in it to offer a fair and unbiased opinion. But also that I wouldn't mind being in your shoes. That said, I think you need to grow up more and experience life a little bit more. I mean really, Two coronas and you're buzzed? How old are you, 18?

I'm just messing with you, if we both end up going to Vandy we'll have to go out, there's one good Irish pub i found down by 1st ave, I can introduce you to real beer. We could start a wine club too...assuming there's not already one.

 

[Jolie South]

The claim that people prefer to go to a doctor that resembles them, if true, is a shame, but by making it so they can go to the one that resembles them, doesn't that just continue to promote, if not endorse, bigotry? The truth is the only reason bigotry is still around is because there is not enough interaction amongst different groups to realize that we're really all the same. Or atleast the differences are so small.

I made a similar comment in another thread and got flamed. I definitely agree.

If we as the educated portion of society continue to function under the assumption that we are all so drastically different that a person of one skin color couldn't possibly understand the other, then how will a change in societal values ever occur?

I realize the counterpoint to this argument is that patient care will suffer because the uneducated, 'set in their ways' folks will continue distrust doctors different from themselves. I get that, but when WILL things change if a conscious change isn't made?

I believe that we do need to increase diversity in our classes by way of inclusion of URMs, so that we can all learn from each other and have the understanding necessary to treat a wide range of patients.

However, I am against the perpetuation of this 'like doctors need to treat like patients' belief.

 

[Lokhtar]

I can see both sides.

 

[Lokhtar]

The goal of medical schools isn't only to create physicians, it is to create health in the community, and whether you like it or not, there are not enough doctors in the under served communities. To create health in the population, certain things like AA are sometimes necessary. I've no problem with a minority getting a seat over someone who has a higher MCAT/GPA.

 

[Lokhtar]

The problem is by adding a criteria that has nothing, NOTHING, to do with how good a physician you're going to be, solely for the effect of shaping the class to be "diverse". I could understand having a preference for URMs if it were shown that URMs were for some reason better physicians.

But unless you can show that they make worse doctors, the schools are doing their jobs in picking the class - they can use whatever criteria they wish. And in terms of health of the communities, they're doing the right thing.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

If we as the educated portion of society continue to function under the assumption that we are all so drastically different that a person of one skin color couldn't possibly understand the other, then how will a change in societal values ever occur?

Well, there's the problem, education. Look at how education is treated in America. It's an after thought for the government. We lag behind less wealthy nations. An article came out last week in the Tampa Tribune about how Hillsborough county is changing the way they grade their final exams. A 26% on the Physics final (high school) is passing. Now, I know that its multiple choice, but not sure if there are four or five possible answer. Either way you have to be incredibly unlucky to fail that test.

So how can we have an educated community if this is what we're doing. For that matter how can anyone get into college out of this county if it is known a GPA of 4.0 (unweighted) can be achieved by both a genius and someone with an IQ smaller than their shoe size.

 

[thoffen]

It is not an analog to socioeconomic status. There is a "disadvantaged" option on the application to discuss that and ample opportunity in the PS, secondaries, interviews, to express any prejudices someone may have received.

It is not to promote diversity in medical school. Although med schools care greatly about diversity, racial diversity is only one small part of that.

The purpose is to get physicians into communities that are in desperate need of health care.

Do med schools do an adequate job of determining whether a future physician is apt to represent a community in need? That's the more valid question. URM is a shortcut that I can't really blame them for taking.

 

[riceman04]

I always see threads hijacked (I've probably done it too) and sidetracked by URM discussions. Why don't we all discuss it here in a civil fashion? If in one thread, it's easier to moderate. I won't bother tossing in opinions yet in case the mods don't like the idea.

I am not here to make belittling remarks. However, I do question why you think it is possible for people here to discuss the issue like civil and rational individuals. Such a discussion has never occurred without it erupting into chaos.

Good luck with this one.

EDIT: after reading through this thread I must say I am actually quite surprised...and actually quite happy...that the discussion has gone so well