Open discussion/thoughts concerning URM as a criteria

[Rotinaj1985]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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.

Not making things worse isn't really a good criteria for doing their jobs.

I'm sure we could elect Mike Huckabee for president and we wouldn't be making things worse. But wouldn't we rather elect someone who is going to make things better? (the bar is already set pretty low)

Thats the problem. We could chose people who are going to keep the status quo, but how can we better the field of medicine if we're not grabbing the best? Who wants to go to a school that sets a minimum standard and just has a first come first serve policy (University of South Florida) versus a school that wants only the best they can possibly get. Either way they're going to fill up their class, but one school will undoubtedly have a higher chance of creating leaders and pioneers and people who will in the end make medicine better.

Simply not making things worse is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

Thoffen,

I wasn't trying to nail your first choice of USF when I made that comment. I didn't realize until after I posted that. Anyway, good luck, chances are you'll be wait listed because USF has a history of filling up their class by Thanksgiving. On the other hand they also go through their wait list really well. So best of luck.

 

[Lokhtar]

Not making things worse isn't really a good criteria for doing their jobs.

I'm sure we could elect Mike Huckabee for president and we wouldn't be making things worse. But wouldn't we rather elect someone who is going to make things better? (the bar is already set pretty low)

Thats the problem. We could chose people who are going to keep the status quo, but how can we better the field of medicine if we're not grabbing the best? Who wants to go to a school that sets a minimum standard and just has a first come first serve policy (University of South Florida) versus a school that wants only the best they can possibly get. Either way they're going to fill up their class, but one school will undoubtedly have a higher chance of creating leaders and pioneers and people who will in the end make medicine better.

Simply not making things worse is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

What in the world are you talking about? I am saying that the URM candidates that were accepted would not be worse than the candidates that would have been accepted instead. And they might be better for the overall health of the communities from which they came and may serve.

Unless you are claiming that the students that did not get accepted would have been better doctors than the ones who did, you have no point.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

What in the world are you talking about? I am saying that the URM candidates that were accepted would not be worse than the candidates that would have been accepted instead. And they might be better for the overall health of the communities from which they came and may serve.

Unless you are claiming that the students that did not get accepted would have been better doctors than the ones who did, you have no point.

I thought it was simple. You said unless they make them worse then the school is doing its job. I'm saying the school is not doing its job by just not making things worse. The schools job is to make things better. By not accepting the best of the best they are severely diminishing the chances of bettering things.

Simple?

 

[thoffen]

Thoffen,

I wasn't trying to nail your first choice of USF when I made that comment. I didn't realize until after I posted that. Anyway, good luck, chances are you'll be wait listed because USF has a history of filling up their class by Thanksgiving. On the other hand they also go through their wait list really well. So best of luck.

I take no offense. Though I doubt their class was full by thanksgiving. They are only about half done with interviews right now, and they indicated there was (still?) a threshold for an outright acceptance. Do you have any evidence of this "first come first serve" policy? USF seems to field a reasonably competitive class.

 

[Lokhtar]

I thought it was simple. You said unless they make them worse then the school is doing its job. I'm saying the school is not doing its job by just not making things worse. The schools job is to make things better. By not accepting the best of the best they are severely diminishing the chances of bettering things.

Simple?

No, not simple. Unless you can show that the criteria they use does in fact diminish their chance of bettering things. Perhaps this is the best way to better the health of the nation.

 

[Jolie South]

Not making things worse isn't really a good criteria for doing their jobs.

I'm sure we could elect Mike Huckabee for president and we wouldn't be making things worse. But wouldn't we rather elect someone who is going to make things better? (the bar is already set pretty low)

Thats the problem. We could chose people who are going to keep the status quo, but how can we better the field of medicine if we're not grabbing the best? Who wants to go to a school that sets a minimum standard and just has a first come first serve policy (University of South Florida) versus a school that wants only the best they can possibly get. Either way they're going to fill up their class, but one school will undoubtedly have a higher chance of creating leaders and pioneers and people who will in the end make medicine better.

Simply not making things worse is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

You're assuming that stats are the only predictor of whether someone will be a good physician or not.

There are I believe some factors in the backgrounds of some that would indicate that they would be great physicians, yet they might have a lower gpa/mcat because of circumstances beyond their control. We don't know.

Look at flaahless for example, his gpa isn't super high, but in looking at his mdapps I have all the confidence in the world that he would be a great physician.

 

[riceman04]

I thought it was simple. You said unless they make them worse then the school is doing its job. I'm saying the school is not doing its job by just not making things worse. The schools job is to make things better. By not accepting the best of the best they are severely diminishing the chances of bettering things.

Simple?

The problem is you are attempting to use a simplified argument to justify utilizing a specific (potential) admissions policy over another (the current). You should define the parameters of your argument. What do you specifically mean by "best of the best"? Does your definitition of the "best of the best" fit within purpose of the social construct of health care or is it too myopic and is actually only addressing one aspect of that construct?

I'm also trying to understand your logic (not a slight at all)

 

[riceman04]

You're assuming that stats are the only predictor of whether someone will be a good physician or not.

There are I believe some factors in the backgrounds of some that would indicate that they would be great physicians, yet they might have a lower gpa/mcat because of circumstances beyond their control. We don't know.

Look at flaahless for example, his gpa isn't super high, but in looking at his mdapps I have all the confidence in the world that he would be a great physician.

This is exactly what I was trying to say...ha ha...but my brain is making me be all convoluted and stuff

 

[thoffen]

You're assuming that stats are the only predictor of whether someone will be a good physician or not.

There are I believe some factors in the backgrounds of some that would indicate that they would be great physicians, yet they might have a lower gpa/mcat because of circumstances beyond their control. We don't know.

Look at flaahless for example, his gpa isn't super high, but in looking at his mdapps I have all the confidence in the world that he would be a great physician.

That's flawed logic. Unless being a URM confers some inherent advantage as a physician that is not evident on an AMCAS application or secondary materials, then this logic does not hold up in the general case. In specific instances, yes, but this is not about those specific cases. Med schools look at applicants wholistically, so it's not about "stats".

The argument is, of course, that being a URM does confer an advantage as a physician. And the advantage is that they are more likely to serve communities in need and relate to individuals who seek their skills on the basis of race.

 

[Jolie South]

That's flawed logic. Unless being a URM confers some inherent advantage as a physician that is not evident on an AMCAS application or secondary materials, then this logic does not hold up in the general case. In specific instances, yes, but this is not about those specific cases. Med schools look at applicants wholistically, so it's not about "stats".

The argument is, of course, that being a URM does confer an advantage as a physician. And the advantage is that they are more likely to serve communities in need and relate to individuals who seek their skills on the basis of race.

My feelings that flaahless would be a good physician have nothing to do with his race. He struggled with personal difficulty, came out and got a 4.0 for 2 years. How many non URM applicants get 4.0s for two years? I sure as hell didn't in undergrad.

The guy also volunteered in a hospice, which I think would have to be really difficult and not for the run of the mill pre-med looking to "check off" volunteering. He also did two years research and got an NIH grant. I wasn't aware that the NIH gave grants out like candy, but I could be wrong. This indicates that he is intelligent and capable of reasoning even if his gpa and mcat globally don't show that.

This is one example. How can you prove that a lot of other URMs aren't like this? You can't because you're looking at things globally. You can't measure the intangibles, so you have no evidence to the contrary.

Not even considering the fact that he is URM, I think he's an awesome candidate. As an adcom, I would totally accept him.

 

[thoffen]

My feelings that flaahless would be a good physician have nothing to do with his race. He struggled with personal difficulty, came out and got a 4.0 for 2 years. How many non URM applicants get 4.0s for two years? I sure as hell didn't in undergrad.

The guy also volunteered in a hospice, which I think would have to be really difficult and not for the run of the mill pre-med looking to "check off" volunteering. He also did two years research and got an NIH grant. I wasn't aware that the NIH gave grants out like candy, but I could be wrong. This indicates that he is intelligent and capable of reasoning even if his gpa and mcat globally don't show that.

This is one example. How can you prove that a lot of other URMs aren't like this? You can't because you're looking at things globally. You can't measure the intangibles, so you have no evidence to the contrary.

Not even considering the fact that he is URM, I think he's an awesome candidate. As an adcom, I would totally accept him.

My point has nothing to do with flaahless. I agree that he is an excellent candidate and has worked hard through tough circumstances and deserves his spot, regardless of race. As you say, this is your feeling as well.

My beef is with the second bolded statement. I cannot prove that there are not a lot of URMS like flaahless. But I also cannot prove that there are not a lot of non-URMS like flaahless. If flaahless's abilities have nothing to do with him being URM, then how do you extend them to other URMs and argue that they must have a similarly exemplary background?

 

[Jolie South]

My point has nothing to do with flaahless. I agree that he is an excellent candidate and has worked hard through tough circumstances and deserves his spot, regardless of race. As you say, this is your feeling as well.

My beef is with the second bolded statement. I cannot prove that there are not a lot of URMS like flaahless. But I also cannot prove that there are not a lot of non-URMS like flaahless. If flaahless's abilities have nothing to do with him being URM, then how do you extend them to other URMs and argue that they must have a similarly exemplary background?

I didn't say they MUST have. I was just arguing that you can't rule it out. The whole person is judged and intangibles and having the whole package is hard to quantify. I was only trying to imply that writing off URMs as good candidates because they have low MCATs and/or GPAs is problematic.

Additionally, I doubt that schools would immediately accept someone with a low GPA/MCAT and no ECs simply because they are a URM, which is the conclusion that you seem to have made.

 

[thoffen]

I didn't say they MUST have. I was just arguing that there is no evidence either way. The whole person is judged and intangibles and having the whole package is hard to quantify. I was only trying to imply that writing off URMs as good candidates because they have low MCATs and/or GPAs is problematic.

Oh I very much agree. The only difference is that, while you imply that writing off URMs as good candidates because they have below average stats is problematic, I state that writing off anyone as a good candidate because they have below average stats is problematic.

Additionally, I doubt that schools would immediately accept someone with a low GPA/MCAT and no ECs simply because they are a URM, which is the conclusion that you seem to have made.

Could you provide some evidence of this? If it helps, I disagree with that statement, so you can throw that assumption out of the window.

I am saying that URMs should have some preference, because they are more likely to successfully serve communities in need of healthcare. I am also saying that, if this were not the case, then race itself should have absolutely nothing to do with admissions. That said, disadvantaged status and diversity of background should absolutely have something major to do with admissions. Since URMs are inherently more likely to have these considerations, then those individuals will have a greater chance of making it to medical school, and rightfully so.

I think we both feel that major academic improvement, major life hurdles, uniquely difficult to obtain extracurriculars, etc. are not given enough ability to counteract lower stats in medical admissions. I am merely distinguishing that, although a URM may be more likely to have this background, that background should never be assumed simply because they are URM.

 

[TheRealMD]

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

This one has been sane for a while. No need to egg it on.

EDIT: I read page two.. oy.

 

[thoffen]

Hopefully my discussion with Jolie is not going in that path. If it is, let me know, and I'll end it. I think there are some important distinctions to be made, so I'm trying to point them out.

 

[Jolie South]

I am saying that URMs should have some preference, because they are more likely to successfully serve communities in need of healthcare. I am also saying that, if this were not the case, then race itself should have absolutely nothing to do with admissions. That said, disadvantaged status and diversity of background should absolutely have something major to do with admissions. Since URMs are inherently more likely to have these considerations, then those individuals will have a greater chance of making it to medical school, and rightfully so.

I think we both feel that major academic improvement, major life hurdles, uniquely difficult to obtain extracurriculars, etc. are not given enough ability to counteract lower stats in medical admissions. I am merely distinguishing that, although a URM may be more likely to have this background, that background should never be assumed simply because they are URM.

Then, I think we agree and it's just semantics making it seem that we don't. 🙂

 

[thoffen]

Then, I think we agree and it's just semantics making it seem that we don't. 🙂

I think you're right about this 🙂. Actually, that was mostly the purpose of dissecting the semantics so heavily. I had to know if you had the same idea or if you were making undue concessions. IMO, it's just as dangerous to be negatively biased as it is to be positively biased. Both allow you to make judgements on something other than the individual, which simply reinforces racial separation.

 

[Crixivan]

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.

If they really wanted doctors to go out and practice in underserved communities, then they would drop the tuition so that disadvantaged students wouldn't be pressured to choose higher paying specialties to make their money back.

I think that the debate lies in whether it is still appropriate to artificially level the playing field in the current age in which you have a generation of kids whose only exposure to a different race may be in the context of mandatory diversity. There are a few states out there who are saying that the ends don't justify the means, and we will probably see more do so in the future.

In those top programs that use separate waitlists to guarantee population-reflected representation, I don't have any doubt that all of those students will do well. This is only an issue for those medical schools that enforce quotas but have student populations with high attrition or many who don't pass their boards.

 

[Maxprime]

If they really wanted doctors to go out and practice in underserved communities, then they would drop the tuition so that disadvantaged students wouldn't be pressured to choose higher paying specialties to make their money back.

First off, this is an absolutely excellent point. But, in reality, I'm under the impression that most schools have a tuition/loan forgiveness program if you're going into FP or rural practice.

I really appreciate how well the discussion has gone - some great points have been made.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

There are programs that pay your medical school if you agree to a certain term of time serving underserved areas.

The problem with using URM as a way to get them to serve in underserved area is: People generally do not give back as much as we'd like them to (I work with college reach out program and the number of kids that are helped out tremendously by it and then give back when they become successful is very low, and this institution has been around for over 25 years).



And again, no one has addressed the issue of is this continuing to support bigotry?
"I don't feel comfortable going to a physician because he's not the same as me."
By all means, lets give them a physician they're comfortable with so they can be healthy bigots who will therefore be more "fit" (in the biological sense) and so have more children who they can raise to be bigots as well.
In reality, the best way for people to get past their biased nature (and we all have it to some extent) is through confrontation.

 

[BlackDr2b]

There are programs that pay your medical school if you agree to a certain term of time serving underserved areas.

The problem with using URM as a way to get them to serve in underserved area is: People generally do not give back as much as we'd like them to (I work with college reach out program and the number of kids that are helped out tremendously by it and then give back when they become successful is very low, and this institution has been around for over 25 years).



And again, no one has addressed the issue of is this continuing to support bigotry?
"I don't feel comfortable going to a physician because he's not the same as me." By all means, lets give them a physician they're comfortable with so they can be healthy bigots who will therefore be more "fit" (in the biological sense) and so have more children who they can raise to be bigots as well.
In reality, the best way for people to get past their biased nature (and we all have it to some extent) is through confrontation.

I don't think this is promoting bigotry. People fell more comfortable going to physicians that look like them because the ones that don't look like them don't treat them right, and I am speaking from personal experiences. That is not true for all but it is for a good amount. Elder African Americans don't trust going to the doctor's because of things that used to happen in the past and still happen. Things like the Tuskegee Experiment still weigh heavy on the minds of people. I don't know if you have but you should check out a book called Medical Apartheid, it is a great book about the history of African Americans and how we have been treated in medicine. This is just one of the reasons some people feel that way.

 

[Jolie South]

I don't think this is promoting bigotry. People fell more comfortable going to physicians that look like them because the ones that don't look like them don't treat them right, and I am speaking from personal experiences. That is not true for all but it is for a good amount. Elder African Americans don't trust going to the doctor's because of things that used to happen in the past and still happen. Things like the Tuskegee Experiment still weigh heavy on the minds of people. I don't know if you have but you should check out a book called Medical Apartheid, it is a great book about the history of African Americans and how we have been treated in medicine. This is just one of the reasons some people feel that way.

I completely understand this history, but how do we move forward? Or do we continue on like this forever?

I don't want to just be a "white people" doctor. 🙂

 

[prettymonkey]

they might be better for the overall health of the communities from which they came and may serve.

but isn't it true that many of the URM applicants do NOT come from a different type of community than a non-URM?

 

[Raoul9]

While I have reservations about the extent to which URM status seems to impact decisions, I think that arguments that AA/URM policies condone bigotry are ridiculous.

“People shouldn’t prefer to be treated by someone like them, and if we diversify our profession to meet patient preference we will be perpetuating this bigotry.” Really? That argument would keep have kept women out of medicine altogether. Try this one out: “They want us to train female OB/GYNs because expecting mothers want a female doctor? Such bigots they are! We’ll show them by keeping women out of medicine. (They’ll thank us later for broadening their narrow minds!)”

I agree that a reflexive need to see yourself reflected in the skin color or ethnicity of your physician is bigoted and short-sighted. But while our responsibility as people is to eradicate intolerance, our responsibility as physicians is to improve the health of our communities. We are training to become physicians, not social reformers. (Okok, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but let’s not confuse our priorities; if you want to sow peace among peoples that’s a noble effort, but it has little to do with renal function.)

If our patients and communities feel more comfortable with and are more adherent to the care of someone they trust, then we need to ensure access to qualified care before we address prejudice. It’s like sociomedical triage.

 

[BlackDr2b]

I completely understand this history, but how do we move forward? Or do we continue on like this forever?

I don't want to just be a "white people" doctor. 🙂

I completely understand what you are saying, but it is hard for people to move forward when they are still being treated the same way. If people were being treated equally and getting the same type of care, then it wouldn't be a problem. I know of many specific cases where people have been mistreated, misdiagnosed, paid no attention to, sometimes not even spoken to by certain physicians. People are going to want to be treated by people who make them feel comfortable and can understand them and won't look at them funny or judge them. I'm not saying that that's not you at all.

 

[Lokhtar]

I completely understand this history, but how do we move forward? Or do we continue on like this forever?

I don't want to just be a "white people" doctor. 🙂

That type of thing takes time, you can't just say 'Well, X and Y doesn't happen anymore, so lets just forget it and move on.'

My sociology professor, as part of his thesis, worked in some inner city clinics. He told us some very interesting stories, where an elderly poor white woman (homeless) came in, and the two physicians (in their private area) were talking about how sad it is that this old woman has no one so she comes in here for a bit of shelter sometimes. But an elderly black man came in (also homeless), and they pretty much said to 'get rid of him, we're not a ****ing hotel.' Is that commonplace? Nope. And my sociology professor made the point that it was a very small percentage, but things can't just be turned off overnight.

The type of treatment was very systemic in the past, and thankfully, is not the case as much as it was, but you can't expect people who lived through it to forget it and start trusting you because you tell them to.

 

[flaahless]

This is a good thread. There's so much that I want to respond to.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

The type of treatment was very systemic in the past, and thankfully, is not the case as much as it was, but you can't expect people who lived through it to forget it and start trusting you because you tell them to.

So it is perfectly Ok for me to distrust anyone who reminds me of someone else who may have wronged me in the past?

Of course thats not what your saying. But the point is the past is the past, we have to learn from it yes, but not be bogged down in it and unable to move beyond it. Unless I'm personally responsible for anything that happened to you in the past you have no business associating it with me. That'd be bigotry as well. And this shows that bigotry leads to bigotry leads to bigotry.

Someone has to push past it.

Furthermore, how much of these "funny looks" by doctors are actually happening, versus how much is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Lokhtar]

So it is perfectly Ok for me to distrust anyone who reminds me of someone else who may have wronged me in the past?

If you're asking me if it's ideal, then no. But as I pointed out, incidents have not been eradicated, especially in poor areas. The story my professor told was in 2000/2001.

Of course thats not what your saying. But the point is the past is the past, we have to learn from it yes, but not be bogged down in it and unable to move beyond it. Unless I'm personally responsible for anything that happened to you in the past you have no business associating it with me. That'd be bigotry as well.

And no one is holding it against you either. There is a comfort level with going to someone who is like you. Why do many women insist on a female gynecologist?

 

[prettymonkey]

Why do many women insist on a female gynecologist?

that is totally not the same thing.

 

[BlackDr2b]

So it is perfectly Ok for me to distrust anyone who reminds me of someone else who may have wronged me in the past?

Of course thats not what your saying. But the point is the past is the past, we have to learn from it yes, but not be bogged down in it and unable to move beyond it. Unless I'm personally responsible for anything that happened to you in the past you have no business associating it with me. That'd be bigotry as well. And this shows that bigotry leads to bigotry leads to bigotry.

Someone has to push past it.

Furthermore, how much of these "funny looks" by doctors are actually happening, versus how much is in the eye of the beholder.

It happens a lot more than you think, trust me my friend.

Also, and I may be wrong, but you make it seem as though what happened in the past to people is nothing. It really isn't that easy to get over. If you have ever had anything traumatic happen to you, then you completely understand how difficult it is to forget. At some point people will be able to move forward but just like it was said above, you can't expect it to just change over night. You can't expect to tell someone to get over being pretty much tortured, or having HCl poured on your skin so you could be put in the circus, or people giving you syphilis(sorry if I spelled it wrong) and not telling you, I mean the list could really go on and on. I'm not saying that all of that still happens or that you did it but it is a very traumatic history and hard to forget and just move past.

 

[novastorm]

It is my sincere hope that the term URM and its use in the application process will wane over time. I sort of see its purpose but then again I see its importance fading greatly in the future. But this all depends on me having faith in humanity...

 

[Habibti]

I know of many specific cases where people have been mistreated, misdiagnosed, paid no attention to,

Yes, some of the mistreatment URMs experience is undoubtedly due to prejudice on the part of the doctors treating them. However, to assume that all mistreatment/misdiagnosis is related to race is ridiculous. Although this will likely be dismissed as anecdotal, my family (and others I know) has dealt with our fair share of doctors who have completely ignored out complaints, misdiagnosed, didn't order vital diagnostic tests before starting treatment, and the list goes on.

 

[Taliesinrk]

Ugh..

 

[Lokhtar]

Yes, some of the mistreatment URMs experience is undoubtedly due to prejudice on the part of the doctors treating them. However, to assume that all mistreatment/misdiagnosis is related to race is ridiculous.

Who has assumed this? The poster said that it happens, which it most certainly does. But that does not mean he said that there is racism behind every mistreatment.

 

[Taliesinrk]

It happens a lot more than you think, trust me my friend.

Also, and I may be wrong, but you make it seem as though what happened in the past to people is nothing. It really isn't that easy to get over. If you have ever had anything traumatic happen to you, then you completely understand how difficult it is to forget. At some point people will be able to move forward but just like it was said above, you can't expect it to just change over night. You can't expect to tell someone to get over being pretty much tortured, or having HCl poured on your skin so you could be put in the circus, or people giving you syphilis(sorry if I spelled it wrong) and not telling you, I mean the list could really go on and on. I'm not saying that all of that still happens or that you did it but it is a very traumatic history and hard to forget and just move past.

That stuff happened to you?

 

[BlackDr2b]

Yes, some of the mistreatment URMs experience is undoubtedly due to prejudice on the part of the doctors treating them. However, to assume that all mistreatment/misdiagnosis is related to race is ridiculous. Although this will likely be dismissed as anecdotal, my family (and others I know) has dealt with our fair share of doctors who have completely ignored out complaints, misdiagnosed, didn't order vital diagnostic tests before starting treatment, and the list goes on.

And I am not saying that it is all race related, because I know it isn't. But a good amount of it is. We would all be lying to ourselves if we said that racism is dead, because it is not. But that is not the discussion on hand. I'm sorry that that happened to your family and friends because it sucks and it's not cool. My point is that African Americans trust African American physicians because they feel comefortable, they know they are going to get the best quality of care, they can identify, they know they won't be judged, they won't be looked at funny, they know they will be taken care of and not just tossed to the side.

 

[flaahless]

That stuff happened to you?

The point was that those actions are major reasons why minorities distrust physicians.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

It happens a lot more than you think, trust me my friend.

Also, and I may be wrong, but you make it seem as though what happened in the past to people is nothing. It really isn't that easy to get over. If you have ever had anything traumatic happen to you, then you completely understand how difficult it is to forget. At some point people will be able to move forward but just like it was said above, you can't expect it to just change over night. You can't expect to tell someone to get over being pretty much tortured, or having HCl poured on your skin so you could be put in the circus, or people giving you syphilis(sorry if I spelled it wrong) and not telling you, I mean the list could really go on and on. I'm not saying that all of that still happens or that you did it but it is a very traumatic history and hard to forget and just move past.

I imagine it would be hard to forget if that stuff actually happened to you.
You just don't see Asians worried about concentration camps in California, although that happened. You don't see Jewish People cringe whenever they meet a person with a German last name. You never hear Native Americans grumbling about Small Pox blankets.

 

[BlackDr2b]

That stuff happened to you?

No not me but it is happened to African Americans throughout our history with medicine. Things like that don't happen today that we know of but people are definitely being mistreated because of their skin color.

 

[Lokhtar]

That stuff happened to you?

If you don't understand the sociological and psychological effect of continuous mistreatment on a population, I suggest you take more college courses. And I can give you anecdotal evidence of things that did happen to people last year when I was volunteering, and I am completely alien and ignorant about most of the things that go on.

 

[flaahless]

I imagine it would be hard to forget if that stuff actually happened to you.
You just don't see Asians worried about concentration camps in California, although that happened. You don't see Jewish People cringe whenever they meet a person with a German last name. You never hear Native Americans grumbling about Small Pox blankets.

Man are you really trying to go here?

 

[BlackDr2b]

I imagine it would be hard to forget if that stuff actually happened to you.
You just don't see Asians worried about concentration camps in California, although that happened. You don't see Jewish People cringe whenever they meet a person with a German last name. You never hear Native Americans grumbling about Small Pox blankets.

Actually Native Americans still do not trust certain things, I know because I am half and my Grandmother is full blooded and would tell me all the time. And it's not the fact that it did or didn't happen to me but it happen to our elders, our families, our ancestors. You make it seem like it is nothing. This discussion is about medicine and trusting people who look like you. I am giving you reasons why African Americans trust African American physicians and not others.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

Ok, so we're agreed, every race gets to play a race card based on some mistreatment that happened to their ancestor. I'm going to play the irish card because my great grandfather couldn't find a real job and so had to work as a Coal miner. From which he got lung cancer.

 

[BlackDr2b]

Ok, so we're agreed, every race gets to play a race card based on some mistreatment that happened to their ancestor. I'm going to play the irish card because my great grandfather couldn't find a real job and so had to work as a Coal miner. From which he got lung cancer.

Hey if that's what you feel and it still hurts to think about and imagine, then do you. But I thought we were talking about medicine and why people trust people who look like them?

 

[flaahless]

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.

Hahaha I missed this. I was drinking on an empty stomach!

 

[Rotinaj1985]

Hey if that's what you feel and it still hurts to think about and imagine, then do you. But I thought we were talking about medicine and why people trust people who look like them?

Thinking about Tuskegee hurts everyone I would imagine or should if they're a decent person. Or any atrocity for that matter. But where does anyone get off blaming everyone of that particular race for the actions of a few? How long do we continue to say it is acceptable to blame people for that?

Its not even about forgive and forget anymore. It's about projecting how you feel about a few people on everyone that resembles them. Where is the bigotry?

I think a big problem with this country is we readily group ourselves into distinct factions with minimal interaction between them. An interracial couple for example is often given funny looks by both sides. If we continue to do this artificial grouping then we will always be that way. By supporting the Medical Schools wish to make a groupings of URMs we are perpetuating the artificial grouping and we will never be one.

 

[Rotinaj1985]

Hahaha I missed this. I was drinking on an empty stomach!

Alright, I'll let that one slide. I fainted once from a penicillin shot on an empty stomach so I know how stuff hits you on an empty stomach.

 

[flaahless]

Thinking about Tuskegee hurts everyone I would imagine or should if they're a decent person. Or any atrocity for that matter. But where does anyone get off blaming everyone of that particular race for the actions of a few? How long do we continue to say it is acceptable to blame people for that?

Its not even about forgive and forget anymore. It's about projecting how you feel about a few people on everyone that resembles them. Where is the bigotry?

I think a big problem with this country is we readily group ourselves into distinct factions with minimal interaction between them. An interracial couple for example is often given funny looks by both sides. If we continue to do this artificial grouping then we will always be that way. By supporting the Medical Schools wish to make a groupings of URMs we are perpetuating the artificial grouping and we will never be one.

It would be easier to forgive and forget if those mistreatments didn't occur anymore. However, a quick glance at the judicial system shows that the oppression remains, ie: Jena 6, Genarlow Wilson, which only perpetuate the distrust.