Parent income level and med school admission rate.. Pretty shocking..

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Well... I only had one parent, my mom, and she made only 30-40 k while I was growing up. She didn't even have college.

I am going to become a doctor. A pretty princess doctor. Either a porn star or doctor were my dream careers, pop star too, I choose becoming a doctor though because my mother wanted me to go to college. So I did. And I decided if I am going to college, I might as well become a doctor, since that's all I am capable of doing.

When I enter medical school, I bet some students will be like, "Did she just wake up one morning and decided to 'I am going to med school!".

Members don't see this ad.
 
Without my parents help for school i wouldn't have had time for as much studying, EC's, etc. My dad works in health care and has been able to create a lot of connections for me with his friends, some of which serve on admissions committees, but i really don't think thats going to help me get into medical school ultimately its up to my individual efforts so i really don't look into that stat as wealth being a way of getting into health professional school.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't know why you guys are ripping on druggeek so much. He was just pointing out generalized trends and the likelihood of varying scenarios. You are being irrational and dumb to twist his words into statements like "Oh, so you think all poor people are dumb??". Of course that's not true, and nobody is denying that having a wealthy family makes preparing for and applying to medical school easier.

But the "stereotypes" he was pointing out exist for a reason. The scenarios he described are common enough that you can't disregard them. Those trends posted by the OP would still exist, although perhaps not quite as strongly, if all post-secondary education was completely "free" in this country, including support for housing/child-care/books and any other barriers that come from being poor.
This is SDN. It's everyone's job to act sanctimonious and self-righteous when someone points things out like that.
 
I am not saying rich people got lucky breaks on their path to success (which apparently = money). I am sure most of them worked hard to get there. What I am saying is that the poor people are poor not because they didn't work hard or spent time smoking weed (like druggeek said). It is because they were put in a situation where this was their most accessible option.
My most accessible option is to play video games all day and eat potato chips.

When you are poor and your parents work two jobs, you don't come home and get on your laptop to write up the paper you need to get an A - you go out and work your ass off to contribute to the family. When you are poor and you have brothers, sisters and other family members to feed, the last thing you plan on doing is going to college and get into even more debt. When you are living pay check to pay check, the last thing you want to do is put money aside for your kids' college fund.

Both you sound a lot like this guy.
No, they don't.
 
I checked some of the links to the studies in the NYT article, and the data appears to come from 2008, 2006, 2002 and earlier years. Most people don't consider George W. Bush to be "liberal".
He was. Bigger government, more government agencies, increased socialized medicine (see Medicare Part D), etc.

There is no conservative party out there right now.
 
I checked some of the links to the studies in the NYT article, and the data appears to come from 2008, 2006, 2002 and earlier years. Most people don't consider George W. Bush to be "liberal".

It's a common misconception that poor people don't work. In fact, "'three out of four poor working-aged adults — ages 18 to 64 — work. Half of them have full-time jobs and a quarter work part time." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/blow-newts-war-on-poor-children.html see also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/opinion/blow-for-jobs-its-war.html?_r=2 That is a higher level of labor force participation than the population at large, where only 47% of the working-age population have full-time jobs, and 11% have part-time jobs. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-24/markets/29974517_1_part-time-unemployment-labor-force Most poor people aren't poor because they don't work. They are poor because they don't earn much when they do work.

I don't think Americans are especially lazy and manipulative compared to people in other countries. I also think most Americans do use paid maternity leave to be with their kids, and most who go to college do so to acquire skills, which I presume are the goals those programs are intended to promote.

Honestly, do you really believe that inexpensive college and parental leave caused the 'lack of mobility'? Really? If so, why do places that have them have more social mobility?



First of all, those studies are longitudinal so to takethe year they were published as the year of relevance is absurd. They representthe decades previous, as they required the rise of another generation tocompare data with.



Second, by the federal guidelines for what defines “poor”I could be considered poor. So, I guess I am one of the “3 out of 4” workingpoor persons. That doesn’t mean I don’t go out to eat every once in a while.Nor does it mean that I am doomed to poverty. I had to work two full-time jobswhile I was studying for the MCAT. This does not doom me to a life of poverty,but it did mean that I had to work extra hard to get to go to medical school.



Thirdly, you presume too much about human nature. I amnot trying to say that Americans are particularly lazy. I was merely statingwhat I thought was obvious about human nature, but now we are getting intosomething more philosophical.

Of course I don’t think that inexpensivecollege and parental leave caused economic immobility. I never once referencedthose programs, though I would absolutely number those among the “worthyprograms.” I thought I made it clear that incentivizing unemployment is what causesthe lack of mobility out of the lowest 5th of income earners. Iabsolutely agree that education is a key aspect to generating the mobility thata nation as great as the United States should have. And with a little girl onthe way you better believe I see the necessity for parental leave. Once again,I never mentioned either of them.

And seriously? Did you just site WIKI as asource? Besides, those numbers are only related to the Federal assistance.While the Federal aid has declined significantly since its inception, the staterun programs are fuller than ever.

Look, everyone’s entitled to their ownopinion, and if you think that the NYT is right in everything it posts, thenOK. But please don’t think they aren’t telling things with a slant.
 
It is a hell of a lot easier to get into med school as a poor person than it is getting a job at Wall Street out of college.
Exactly!

It's a number game. 4.0 with the right classes, with a decent MCAT

yep
 
He was. Bigger government, more government agencies, increased socialized medicine (see Medicare Part D), etc.

There is no conservative party out there right now.

I guess it just depends on your definition of "conservative". The US is more conservative than most developed countries--it has a smaller government, less socialized medicine, to use your examples--so W was pretty clearly conservative by international, developed world standards, even though the state expanded some on his watch. If by conservative, you mean a party dedicated to some sort of Rothbard-ian libertarianism, then clearly W was not conservative. He couldn't be, at least not if he wanted to get elected and govern. There are about 195 countries in the world, perhaps half of which are at least somewhat democratic. By my count, exactly 0 of them are libertarian. That says a lot about what people actually want.
 
By my count, exactly 0 of them are libertarian. That says a lot about what people actually want.
By my count, it doesn't say much of anything about what people want. I'm pretty sure most of the people in the dictatorships don't want them.
 
By my count, it doesn't say much of anything about what people want. I'm pretty sure most of the people in the dictatorships don't want them.

As I pointed out in my post, about half of those 195 countries are at least somewhat democratic. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 15.6% of countries are "full democracies" and 31.7% are "flawed democracies." http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

The EIU survey only covers 165 of the 195 countries. But of those, 26 are full democracies, and exactly 0 of those full democracies are libertarian. 53 countries are flawed democracies, and exactly 0 of those are libertarian. In no case have voters elected a libertarian government. You assert that "doesn't say much of anything about what people want." I simply cannot agree. I cannot imagine a more comprehensive rejection of a doctrine by the voters who would be subject to it.
 
So, it's safe to say that everything druggeek says can be quoted in the crazy things you hear premeds say thread.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I don't see why that doesn't make sense to be honest. People who make >100k/year are also a lot more likely to be naturally smarter (in different ways) and naturally more hard working (in again different ways) than those who make 50k/year. These people are also more likely to have smarter/hard working kids (combination of genetics and environmental factors such as raising the child). As a result those getting into med. have such parents.

On the other hand a lot of people (unfortunately) who make average incomes (by national standard), were those who barely pulled 50s in high school and smoked weed all day, then took up a construction job and left it at that. Yes unfortunate reality. These people are not as likely to have smart kids.

And as shown by those numbers, this holds true 60%/40% of the time, so a fair majority.


:sleep: Please. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Just because someone makes over 100k doesn't make them smarter or not, the same can go for the middle class. Many times higher incomes mean better resources-schools, neighborhoods, etc.. Income is not a reliable factor of intelligence.
 
I clearly said that it's hard work AND talent.
The doctors/pro athletes you named were muchhhh more talented than someone who's in a low income situation. That's simple common sense and by definition is the only thing that makes sense.

Being lazy is just one factor, with talent being the bigger factor in the end. Since those with talent in something are much more likely to work hard in that area anyway.

someone working 2 jobs to make ends meet wouldn't be doing that in the first place if they had the incredible talent of a top notch businessman who can take himself from bankrupty to 10k/day CEO.

I see that you have moved on from hard work to talent. I would still love an answer to my question about who works harder.

Talent is a big factor and I hate the society today that tells every child that they are a unique snowflake and will be great at everything if they try. Different people have different talents, some are more gifted than others and some use their talents more wisely than others. What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is a correlation between economic prosperity and talent. Saying someone rich is more talented than someone poor is the biggest bull**** I have heard in a long time. Yes - talent can, in the end, lead to money if utilized and developed properly. But not every kind of talent can be developed individually without support and opportunity.

A person with a talent to sing who has not been given an opportunity to showcase that talent because her economic situations put her in such a position will not be discovered and will not make any money off of that talent. A talented artist who has to work some menial job to cover his/her rent and bills will not be able to spend as much time developing that talent as someone who has a trust fund dedicated to paying their bills. A intelligent person can't be a physician or a CEO if that person doesn't have the money to pay for a college education. That is where the economic problems and inequalities set in. Being rich provides a boost and opens up many avenues to develop talents you may have or work on things that you are good at. But if you are in a situation were you have to focus your time, energy and life on meeting the basic demands of life, then you have nothing left to develop a talent.

That is why your example of the person working two jobs is pointless and idiotic. Just having talent to become an incredible businessman doesn't guarantee someone walking up to them and investing money in their ideas. Having a talent to be an incredible businessman is not enough to get a job that might help this person climb the corporate ladder. That requires a degree... that requires knowledge of business... that requires opportunity... Someone who has never had the chance to learn how to be a businessman will never develop any talent they might have innately had.

I am not saying only rich people get opportunities and that the poor are always pushed into more poverty. I am not saying that the rich made it because they had these opportunities. What I am saying is that the rich have more opportunities and have ways were they can help their children or grandchildren develop talents. With these opportunities, these people have worked hard to develop their talents... there is no denying that.

No individual is born into this society with an equal chance. Life is not fair. But given the right chance, I believe every person - rich or poor - who works hard can develop the talents they have. The only thing that separates people out are the chances they get. That is not always equal.
 
Oh dear. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean they are dumb/*****/stupid/lazy whatever you want to call it. In fact, people who are poor often have to work 2-3 jobs to provide for their family and you call that lazy? Please open your eyes and stop the stereotype.
 
Oh dear. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean they are dumb/*****/stupid/lazy whatever you want to call it. In fact, people who are poor often have to work 2-3 jobs to provide for their family and you call that lazy? Please open your eyes and stop the stereotype.
What percentage of those below the median are actually working three jobs?

It might not mean they are dumb/stupid/lazy, but I'm quite sure you'd find a positive correlation.
 
As I pointed out in my post, about half of those 195 countries are at least somewhat democratic. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 15.6% of countries are "full democracies" and 31.7% are "flawed democracies." http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

The EIU survey only covers 165 of the 195 countries. But of those, 26 are full democracies, and exactly 0 of those full democracies are libertarian. 53 countries are flawed democracies, and exactly 0 of those are libertarian. In no case have voters elected a libertarian government. You assert that "doesn't say much of anything about what people want." I simply cannot agree. I cannot imagine a more comprehensive rejection of a doctrine by the voters who would be subject to it.
You act as if voters simply get together and vote a referendum through for what kind of government they want. That's not even what the US did.
 
I disagree. How do you know that the person working 2 jobs has no talent? What if they're so poor that they never had the opportunities to develop their talents? Even if you are "naturally talented" at something, you still have to work for success. Let take Roger Federer in tennis. He's definitely talented...but he wouldn't be where he is if he never had the opportunity to play tennis. Poor people have fewer opportunities to bring out their talent. I bet my parents who grew up in a 3rd world country would also be successful if they had the opportunities. My mom has been working since she was 10 years old to help raise her 4 younger siblings. She didn't have time to worry about anything else except making money and to make ends meet. Even if she had talent, she never had the chance to do anything about it.

That's why it's not shocking for most medical students to come from families with higher income. They had more doors open for them in the first place. It doesn't mean that they are any naturally smarter or talented. They just have more resources. It's not that they don't need to work hard to get to where they are because they still need to put in the effort. But people who are more unfortunate have to work even harder open up doors for themselves. If you've never experienced poverty, you have no idea how hard it is to be successful even if you have talent.

I think you're reallyyyyy stretching this to be black and white when it's anything but that. Most people are not rich or poor, they're inbetween. Here in Canada, it is quite rare to live somewhere where you don't have decent opportunity to excel in sports and/or academics. There's lots of areas where everyone goes to sleep, has an opportunity, and although their parents dont make a lot.... they still have a CHANCE. But when your grades are mediocre even with some effort, and you suck in gym class... lets face it, you're not talented athletically or academically.

What you say is true but very rare. To be poor to the level where you don't have a chance to excel in anything, meaning you are talented enough to be a pro athlete/doctor/lawyer/top business/etc. but never get the chance to (I'm not talking about an average successful person either....). Certainly outside of north america, but not so much here.
 
I see that you have moved on from hard work to talent. I would still love an answer to my question about who works harder.

Talent is a big factor and I hate the society today that tells every child that they are a unique snowflake and will be great at everything if they try. Different people have different talents, some are more gifted than others and some use their talents more wisely than others. What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is a correlation between economic prosperity and talent. Saying someone rich is more talented than someone poor is the biggest bull**** I have heard in a long time. Yes - talent can, in the end, lead to money if utilized and developed properly. But not every kind of talent can be developed individually without support and opportunity.

A person with a talent to sing who has not been given an opportunity to showcase that talent because her economic situations put her in such a position will not be discovered and will not make any money off of that talent. A talented artist who has to work some menial job to cover his/her rent and bills will not be able to spend as much time developing that talent as someone who has a trust fund dedicated to paying their bills. A intelligent person can't be a physician or a CEO if that person doesn't have the money to pay for a college education. That is where the economic problems and inequalities set in. Being rich provides a boost and opens up many avenues to develop talents you may have or work on things that you are good at. But if you are in a situation were you have to focus your time, energy and life on meeting the basic demands of life, then you have nothing left to develop a talent.

That is why your example of the person working two jobs is pointless and idiotic. Just having talent to become an incredible businessman doesn't guarantee someone walking up to them and investing money in their ideas. Having a talent to be an incredible businessman is not enough to get a job that might help this person climb the corporate ladder. That requires a degree... that requires knowledge of business... that requires opportunity... Someone who has never had the chance to learn how to be a businessman will never develop any talent they might have innately had.

I am not saying only rich people get opportunities and that the poor are always pushed into more poverty. I am not saying that the rich made it because they had these opportunities. What I am saying is that the rich have more opportunities and have ways were they can help their children or grandchildren develop talents. With these opportunities, these people have worked hard to develop their talents... there is no denying that.

No individual is born into this society with an equal chance. Life is not fair. But given the right chance, I believe every person - rich or poor - who works hard can develop the talents they have. The only thing that separates people out are the chances they get. That is not always equal.

Dude, most people don't grow up on a street corner and raise out their hand to buy their dinner.... If that were the case you'd be right. But you can't call someone poor when they live in an average apartment and drive one car. Also the people you're quoting (ex. pro athletes) have veryyy rare talents. I've been in high level sports for a long time, and believe me when I tell you, the odds that somoene didn't have the opportunity to do a sport and were good enough to be the best, are VERY low.

Now for business skills, well if you can't make good money selling crack on the streets it's safe to say you wouldnt be a good business man in the real world anyway.
And at the same time, if you're not acing classes in grades 1-3, it's safe to say you're not smart. So you don't need any big opportunities to develop, those who are extremely gifted with showcase these talent(s) quite early and without any real practice.

I know I sound quite blunt, but I'm actually being realistic. Something people generally arent.

:sleep: Please. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Just because someone makes over 100k doesn't make them smarter or not, the same can go for the middle class. Many times higher incomes mean better resources-schools, neighborhoods, etc.. Income is not a reliable factor of intelligence.

Yes many times they do, but a MAJORITY of the time higher income = generally more intelligent than lower income. Again just a sense of reality, we're not all equal.

This is SDN. It's everyone's job to act sanctimonious and self-righteous when someone points things out like that.

People love fantasy world. Like dammit I can't remember how many times teachers would tell students "you're unique and special." Like dude... there's ~7 billion humans on the planet, no one on here is special and 95% of this class won't do anything even remotely special in their life other than get get drunk and acquire diabetes/heart disease/cancer at a young age. Kids just get it installed in their minds that they must become "insert movie star/singer/pro athlete." I even remember kids telling me they "may settle for becoming a doctor or lawyer." And you grow up with that mentality, thinking you are incredibly talented and are very special. :luck:

Oh dear. Being poor doesn't necessarily mean they are dumb/*****/stupid/lazy whatever you want to call it. In fact, people who are poor often have to work 2-3 jobs to provide for their family and you call that lazy? Please open your eyes and stop the stereotype.

doesn't neccessarily mean you are, correct for the 10000th time. But >50% of the time it means you were either lazy at a young age or not talented enough OR your parents were one of the above. And it goes back from there.... but generally, those who are talented and wise will work themselves out of a funk and excel in life.
 
Dude, most people don't grow up on a street corner and raise out their hand to buy their dinner.... If that were the case you'd be right. But you can't call someone poor when they live in an average apartment and drive one car. Also the people you're quoting (ex. pro athletes) have veryyy rare talents. I've been in high level sports for a long time, and believe me when I tell you, the odds that somoene didn't have the opportunity to do a sport and were good enough to be the best, are VERY low.

Now for business skills, well if you can't make good money selling crack on the streets it's safe to say you wouldnt be a good business man in the real world anyway.
And at the same time, if you're not acing classes in grades 1-3, it's safe to say you're not smart. So you don't need any big opportunities to develop, those who are extremely gifted with showcase these talent(s) quite early and without any real practice.

I know I sound quite blunt, but I'm actually being realistic. Something people generally arent.

1. Let me get this straight. You are saying that because you are in high level sports you know that people who aren't in high level sports have very low odds of being talented at it?

2. Did you just say that selling crack on the streets requires the same set of skills/is the same as running a good business? I am beginning to suspect you are trolling more and more.

3. You are not being realistic. You are being simplistic. I will try to explain it one last time. Yes - I pointed out some of the extreme situations when I gave examples but the statement about opportunities stand throughout all socioeconomic strata. But your theory of not acing grades 1-3 = not smart is simplistic. You fail to take into consideration lots of factors including school curricula, teachers, parents and family situations, peers, economic and social pressures among others. Saying poor people become poor because they are dumb is just naive and narrow minded. Can you say you are smarter than a plumber or an electrician because you are a physician?
 
1. Let me get this straight. You are saying that because you are in high level sports you know that people who aren't in high level sports have very low odds of being talented at it?

2. Did you just say that selling crack on the streets requires the same set of skills/is the same as running a good business? I am beginning to suspect you are trolling more and more.

3. You are not being realistic. You are being simplistic. I will try to explain it one last time. Yes - I pointed out some of the extreme situations when I gave examples but the statement about opportunities stand throughout all socioeconomic strata. But your theory of not acing grades 1-3 = not smart is simplistic. You fail to take into consideration lots of factors including school curricula, teachers, parents and family situations, peers, economic and social pressures among others. Saying poor people become poor because they are dumb is just naive and narrow minded. Can you say you are smarter than a plumber or an electrician because you are a physician?

I, for one, did not do very well in 1st and 2nd grade. While I may be the extreme, it certainly demonstrates that there's not necessarily a correlation between elementary performance and intelligence.
 
I see that you have moved on from hard work to talent. I would still love an answer to my question about who works harder.

Talent is a big factor and I hate the society today that tells every child that they are a unique snowflake and will be great at everything if they try. Different people have different talents, some are more gifted than others and some use their talents more wisely than others. What I don't agree with is your assertion that there is a correlation between economic prosperity and talent. Saying someone rich is more talented than someone poor is the biggest bull**** I have heard in a long time. Yes - talent can, in the end, lead to money if utilized and developed properly. But not every kind of talent can be developed individually without support and opportunity.

A person with a talent to sing who has not been given an opportunity to showcase that talent because her economic situations put her in such a position will not be discovered and will not make any money off of that talent. A talented artist who has to work some menial job to cover his/her rent and bills will not be able to spend as much time developing that talent as someone who has a trust fund dedicated to paying their bills. A intelligent person can't be a physician or a CEO if that person doesn't have the money to pay for a college education. That is where the economic problems and inequalities set in. Being rich provides a boost and opens up many avenues to develop talents you may have or work on things that you are good at. But if you are in a situation were you have to focus your time, energy and life on meeting the basic demands of life, then you have nothing left to develop a talent.

That is why your example of the person working two jobs is pointless and idiotic. Just having talent to become an incredible businessman doesn't guarantee someone walking up to them and investing money in their ideas. Having a talent to be an incredible businessman is not enough to get a job that might help this person climb the corporate ladder. That requires a degree... that requires knowledge of business... that requires opportunity... Someone who has never had the chance to learn how to be a businessman will never develop any talent they might have innately had.

I am not saying only rich people get opportunities and that the poor are always pushed into more poverty. I am not saying that the rich made it because they had these opportunities. What I am saying is that the rich have more opportunities and have ways were they can help their children or grandchildren develop talents. With these opportunities, these people have worked hard to develop their talents... there is no denying that.

No individual is born into this society with an equal chance. Life is not fair. But given the right chance, I believe every person - rich or poor - who works hard can develop the talents they have. The only thing that separates people out are the chances they get. That is not always equal.


Beauty gives me everything I ever desire. I don't have to pay bills, don't have to pay for furni, seldom pay for food... I am a leech off my boyfriend. My boyfriend isn't that successful, but it beats working for rent. I work because I want my survival money... I even cut my hours so I can study. I don't have to struggle in this life, because I have beauty.

I will become a doctor too. A bimbonic doctor, but a doctor nevertheless. I even have a 4.0 (with one W)

You don't have to be born rich to get what you want, all you have to do is use what you have. Beauty... beauty... it's an asset like no other. My soul is as ugly as a demonic rat, but my beauty is as priceless as a diamond.

And I am going to be beautiful until I am 60 o' so, I protect it, Retin A +sunscreen. By then, I won't care about my looks.

Sin deep, skin deep, it's all the same.
 
1. Let me get this straight. You are saying that because you are in high level sports you know that people who aren't in high level sports have very low odds of being talented at it?

2. Did you just say that selling crack on the streets requires the same set of skills/is the same as running a good business? I am beginning to suspect you are trolling more and more.

3. You are not being realistic. You are being simplistic. I will try to explain it one last time. Yes - I pointed out some of the extreme situations when I gave examples but the statement about opportunities stand throughout all socioeconomic strata. But your theory of not acing grades 1-3 = not smart is simplistic. You fail to take into consideration lots of factors including school curricula, teachers, parents and family situations, peers, economic and social pressures among others. Saying poor people become poor because they are dumb is just naive and narrow minded. Can you say you are smarter than a plumber or an electrician because you are a physician?

1. No what I'm saying is after a certain age, everyone at the top is truly the most talented. Lots of people may be "good" at something, but more often than not the top 10 in the world are also just about top 10 most talented in the world. The odds of someone being that talented but not having a chance is LOW. Why? Because most people get every opportunity and don't get anywhere remotely close to the top. So what are the odds for the small minority that didnt have an opportunity?

2. No I meant that if you're getting ripped off on weed, odds are your personal business probably wouldn't go too far either because you don't have the innate personal skills to manage and enhance a business. These skills can show themselves in different ways.

3. If I'm being simplistic, then you're being too specific. Stop looking at <5% of the population and look at the >95%. Very few people have extremely rare talents (mainstream talents) and get no chance to showcase these. And yes you can say by being a physician, you are in fact smarter than a plumber. :laugh: Like dude forget the idealistic world, every person I knew in high school who went into trades barely passed or failed grade 10 math and that was with tutoring/extra help. Same goes for construction jobs, useless CC programs, etc. They had the chance and just werent smart enough. Problem? No. They make decent money. But you have to at least see the facts and stop looking at very rare cases.
 
1. No what I'm saying is after a certain age, everyone at the top is truly the most talented. Lots of people may be "good" at something, but more often than not the top 10 in the world are also just about top 10 most talented in the world. The odds of someone being that talented but not having a chance is LOW. Why? Because most people get every opportunity and don't get anywhere remotely close to the top. So what are the odds for the small minority that didnt have an opportunity?

2. No I meant that if you're getting ripped off on weed, odds are your personal business probably wouldn't go too far either because you don't have the innate personal skills to manage and enhance a business. These skills can show themselves in different ways.

3. If I'm being simplistic, then you're being too specific. Stop looking at <5% of the population and look at the >95%. Very few people have extremely rare talents (mainstream talents) and get no chance to showcase these. And yes you can say by being a physician, you are in fact smarter than a plumber. :laugh: Like dude forget the idealistic world, every person I knew in high school who went into trades barely passed or failed grade 10 math and that was with tutoring/extra help. Same goes for construction jobs, useless CC programs, etc. They had the chance and just werent smart enough. Problem? No. They make decent money. But you have to at least see the facts and stop looking at very rare cases.

1. I don't even know how to respond to this. You are incredible naive to think that "most people get every opportunity". There are 7 billion people in this world and, trust me, most of the people barely get a few opportunities.

2. You are giving too much power to innately present talent and too little to developed, grown, nourished talent. It comes down to the question of nature vs nurture which has been debated thoroughly with no conclusion. So I will leave this at that.

3. Again, you are equating being academically successful to being intelligent/smart. Which I don't agree with.
 
1. I don't even know how to respond to this. You are incredible naive to think that "most people get every opportunity". There are 7 billion people in this world and, trust me, most of the people barely get a few opportunities.

2. You are giving too much power to innately present talent and too little to developed, grown, nourished talent. It comes down to the question of nature vs nurture which has been debated thoroughly with no conclusion. So I will leave this at that.

3. Again, you are equating being academically successful to being intelligent/smart. Which I don't agree with.

1. Don't think of 3rd world countries. Everyone has an opportunity in the USA, the land of capitalism, don't believe me... look at Madonna. She's not beautiful, she's not talented, she's nothing but a good businesswoman who can sing some good tunes with the right people at the right time.

how she got there? intelligence (she is smart... was accepted to UofM but dropped out because she wanted to be a superstarrr)

2. no comment

3. Academic success is a form of intelligence. If everyone tried equally, some will fail some will progress some will suceed.
 
1. Don't think of 3rd world countries. Everyone has an opportunity in the USA, the land of capitalism, don't believe me... look at Madonna. She's not beautiful, she's not talented, she's nothing but a good businesswoman who can sing some good tunes with the right people at the right time.

how she got there? intelligence (she is smart... was accepted to UofM but dropped out because she wanted to be a superstarrr)


2. no comment

3. Academic success is a form of intelligence. If everyone tried equally, some will fail some will progress some will suceed.

Coming from an immigrant family who started off with $5 and is now in 6 figures I partially agree with this. America has a lot of opportunity, but there are variations. Some people (the people with more resources/connections/money) have an easier time availing opportunities, while the dirt poor people like my family had to work 3 full time jobs at once, go through school, and work for under 30K for years (and had to raise the kids).
 
You act as if voters simply get together and vote a referendum through for what kind of government they want. That's not even what the US did.

What better evidence of voter preference is there than how voters actually vote in elections? There are literally dozens of libertarian parties in democracies around the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_political_parties If voters really wanted a libertarian government, they would have voted one into power in at least in one of the dozens of democratic countries where they have had the opportunity. That did not happen. In the free market of governing ideologies, libertarianism has failed. Voters have uniformly rejected it.
 
What better evidence of voter preference is there than how voters actually vote in elections? There are literally dozens of libertarian parties in democracies around the world. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_political_parties If voters really wanted a libertarian government, they would have voted one into power in at least in one of the dozens of democratic countries where they have had the opportunity. That did not happen. In the free market of governing ideologies, libertarianism has failed. Voters have uniformly rejected it.

If only it were that simple. Our basic electoral system encourages the formation of large parties at the expense of small ones. I won't get in to the details here, but I would encourage you to check out these videos. They explain both the US system (first past the post) and other systems and the advantages and disadvantages of each in a somewhat fun, silly, yet informative way.

The tl;dr version is that it isn't as simple as saying "voters vote for what they want." There are fundamental flaws in the system that cause voters to actually NOT vote for what they want and, instead, vote for what they can most tolerate.

The problems with first past the post:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/YOUTUBE]

The alternate vote:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/YOUTUBE]

Mixed member proportional representation:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU[/YOUTUBE]
 
TL;DR version of this whole thread: Life is unfairly biased toward successful people.

This is to be expected. Decreasing the cost of medical school, medical school applications, and education in general is the way to address this issue.
 
I think the moral of this thread is, 'life isn't fair.' Most people figure this out sooner or later.
 
If only it were that simple. Our basic electoral system encourages the formation of large parties at the expense of small ones. I won't get in to the details here, but I would encourage you to check out these videos. They explain both the US system (first past the post) and other systems and the advantages and disadvantages of each in a somewhat fun, silly, yet informative way.

I'd love to see a different voting scheme that broke up the stranglehold of the two big political parties, sure. Some sort of preferential voting system seems ideal to me. But I don't think you can pin all the blame for libertarianism's lack of success on the voting system. Candidates with more libertarian views regularly run in primaries of one or the other big politican party, and they consistently fail to attract large portions of the vote. Ron Paul is doing better than any other libertarian minded candidate for a national office in recent memory, and he's still nowhere near the level he'd need to be a real contender.
 
If only it were that simple. Our basic electoral system encourages the formation of large parties at the expense of small ones. I won't get in to the details here, but I would encourage you to check out these videos. They explain both the US system (first past the post) and other systems and the advantages and disadvantages of each in a somewhat fun, silly, yet informative way.

The tl;dr version is that it isn't as simple as saying "voters vote for what they want." There are fundamental flaws in the system that cause voters to actually NOT vote for what they want and, instead, vote for what they can most tolerate.

I think Ireland has this alternate voting system, and libertarians haven't done well there. Preliminary election with run off elections also give opportunity to minor parties to show their hand, libertarians haven't done well. Central premises of libertarians agains nanny state is flawed. People want nanny state where the nanny protects little brother from big brother "bully". Most medical students want government to give them cheap loan, want scholarships that have indirect support through tax deduction/exemption, support residency through tax dollars etc; that is all essentially "nanny state".

I am sort of bleeding heart libertarian and voted for libertarians often. If libertarians want to win they should see that nanny state, where the government shelters little brother from big brother, is ok but police state, where government harrasses people, is not.

Addendum: For practical reasons any system has to boil down to binary yes/no result. Scientific American had published a long article on these aspects from game theory point of view.
 
Last edited:
Financial resources matter can be seen from Nobel Prizes. After the WW II US started spending lot of money in scientific research. It's not that Europeans who used to dominate these prizes haven't become suddenly dumb. Poeple in China and India weren't or aren't dumb either. It's financial resources. Analogosly the financial resuorces of family matter in success of their children.
 
If only it were that simple. Our basic electoral system encourages the formation of large parties at the expense of small ones. I won't get in to the details here, but I would encourage you to check out these videos. They explain both the US system (first past the post) and other systems and the advantages and disadvantages of each in a somewhat fun, silly, yet informative way.

The tl;dr version is that it isn't as simple as saying "voters vote for what they want." There are fundamental flaws in the system that cause voters to actually NOT vote for what they want and, instead, vote for what they can most tolerate.

The problems with first past the post:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/YOUTUBE]

The alternate vote:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/YOUTUBE]

Mixed member proportional representation:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU[/YOUTUBE]

Thanks those were interesting and informative. In my discussions with Prowler, I was not limiting my discussion of the attractions of libertarianism solely to the US, and it is my understanding that other systems around the world, e.g., Germany, do use some form of proportional representation which better reflect diverse viewpoints. Still, given the limits of what can be deduced from voting, perhaps I need to temper my comment. How about 'the failure of libertarians to obtain power in even one of the dozens of democratic countries, countries that use a variety of voting systems and a experience a variety of local issues, is strong evidence that libertarian policies are not strongly supported by voters.'
 
Thanks those were interesting and informative. In my discussions with Prowler, I was not limiting my discussion of the attractions of libertarianism solely to the US, and it is my understanding that other systems around the world, e.g., Germany, do use some form of proportional representation which better reflect diverse viewpoints. Still, given the limits of what can be deduced from voting, perhaps I need to temper my comment. How about 'the failure of libertarians to obtain power in even one of the dozens of democratic countries, countries that use a variety of voting systems and a experience a variety of local issues, is strong evidence that libertarian policies are not strongly supported by voters.'

Ireland, I think, actually has this alternate system where voters list their preferences and one by one lower vote getters are eliminated and their best prefernce for remaining candidates is redistributed.
 
1. I don't even know how to respond to this. You are incredible naive to think that "most people get every opportunity". There are 7 billion people in this world and, trust me, most of the people barely get a few opportunities.

2. You are giving too much power to innately present talent and too little to developed, grown, nourished talent. It comes down to the question of nature vs nurture which has been debated thoroughly with no conclusion. So I will leave this at that.

3. Again, you are equating being academically successful to being intelligent/smart. Which I don't agree with.

1. lol why again are you looking at 3rd world countries? this whole thread was about USA? And we'll include Canada in this as well. A very large majority of us get ideal opportunity to succeed in something we're talented at.

2. Because that's innately present talent is what almost always wins at the end. Those who overcome that with hard work are usually those who are slightly less talented and the more talented person doesn't work hard at all.

Ex. in my sport (track and field), you can be "good" and train 2x a day, 6x a week... but you'll never be the top 3 in the country no matter how much work you put into it. I'd go into times and how it works out, but the point is, I could go to a track meet and tell you the level of potential of practically everyone after the results come in. After seeing an endless number of athletes, talent was by farrr the biggest factor.

But that's just an example, and this is shown in many cases. I've known many cases of nurture as well... known kids with hardcore academic or athletic parents, while the kids were just average. So with all that hard work from day 1 of being a small kid, they ended up barely above average. In the meantime, the more talented easily won and succeeded more with far far less work.


3. Then you're probably trolling. Read my above example, I've known people who personally worked hard from a veryy young age academically and barely did well throughout school, even while having average intelligence. At the same time, I knew people who did minimal work throughout high school and still got mid 80s, then bumped it up a little and finished grade 12 with straight 90s. Where's the "nurture" aspect in that? They were smarter, that is all. I've also known people living in lower income areas, and while a large majority of people there don't care about school, the few very smart ones all aced their classes and went to uni. Point? If you have the talent, you're much more likely to do something with it.
I think the moral of this thread is, 'life isn't fair.' Most people figure this out sooner or later.

Of course it isn't. Some people are born attractive, some are ugly, some are rich, some poor and most are average. It's the way things go when you have such a large diversity in the human gene pool. I think we should be satisfied living where we do because at least our daily life's goal isn't to survive till tomorrow morning....unlike some other places in the world.
 
Oh come on this is sociology 101 stuff guys. Poorer families tend to socialize their kids with different ideal sets and skills that they believe will better prepare them for life. Kids from poorer families are socialized to think in the box and to rigidly follow commands, they are also conditioned to believe that education may not be the greatest pay out. Kids from more affluent families are socialized and conditioned with a completely different mentality and approach to even the simplest situations.

This is not a debate about how poorer people are genetically less intelligent, that is notion from a discredited philosophy, Social Darwinism.

Also another few reasons we can attribute to this phenomenon is that children are afraid sometimes of exceeding their families intellectual level, that their families will dislike them for the perceived notion that they are better than them. There is also the problem with money, college graduates ( 20% of the US) are mainly from the upper middle class, and as this representation of upper middle class earning is not at all surprising.

This is a false statement you are posting on SDN. If you never grew up in a poor family then you have no idea what we are "conditioned" to believe in our household. I grew up in a poor family and they instill in me that education is the way out.

The second statement I bolded, who told you this RUBBISH, lol. You're just talking out off your snooty tail. Please, get your sources together.

Wait...are we talking about families with lower incomes....or a dog breed? God I'm so confused.

I swear with each post this thread gets more and more ridiculous with stereotypes. Maybe kids with richer parents are more likely to go to med school because:

1- They have better resources and support growing up (ie- less BS to deal with).
2- They have more pressure from their parents to choose a higher paying, prestigious career.

Could it be that simple? Or did my middle class upbringing make me think too much in the box? ;)

I totally agree with your statements! Kudos to you :)

Well, this thread is already besieged with stereotypes and skews, so I'll try to add my experience softly.

Higher income parents either live in areas with better public schools, or they can afford to send their children to private institutions, which can provide very strong college preparation. In contrast, for many reasons, low-income schools struggle more over all. The difference between an education at a public high school in the slums of the Bronx, and an education at a high-performing private school, is tremendous - staggering, actually. Overwhelming.

There are a thousand things flowing into this disparity, coming from all directions and all levels of societal structure. Many of them are pretty rotten to think about. The outcome, I tentatively wager, translates through college and to medical school acceptance rates (well, maybe not so tentatively, see eg http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/07/berg)

I also agree with your statement because I grew up in Brooklyn, New York and the education was not the best, but I am living proof that you can make it anywhere in life with CFHW (Consistency, Faith, Hard Work).

To the ******** who keeps repeating themselves about people with more wealth being more intelligent and having greater work ethic, you've got to be one of the most ignorant people I've seen on SDN. Congratulations. You're saying parents who don't make a significant amount of money are lazy and are less intelligent than other parents, which is entirely out of your ass. There are plenty of intelligent people with lower-than-average paying jobs and sadly they are often the unappreciated jobs that are helping people even less fortunate than themselves like those who work with the mentally handicapped, primary school teachers, nursing home workers, etc. A lot of people are screwed out of jobs right now at EVERY level of employment due to the state of the world right now, disabilities, and injury; obviously decreasing income.

Just because your mommy and daddy were able to make a ton of money, it doesn't mean they even had to work all that hard to get it. And sure as hell doesn't mean you've worked hard to get to where you are. You've worked just as hard as the person next to you. Stop patting yourself on the back kid; and stop suggesting that everyone who isn't as rich as your parents is either less intelligent or a drug addict.

He is a ******** to the 5th power ^_^. He has no idea how life really is. He probably was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and looks down at the unfortunate, which is pretty sad :(. His parents could have been born into wealth and had the easy way out. They probably never struggled themselves.

I think you misunderstood the 60% / 40% split. There's lots of people in that 40% who had parents making even below the national average income. You just don't understand what I mean when I say a "majority of the time." Hence >50% of the time, what I say is true. And no one says people making average income are "lazy" by any means, they just weren't that smart in school and/or were too lazy. Now they work a trade job (which is good anyways in many cases) or do constructions, etc etc. But hey this seems to be the case for 2 out of every 3 people I see who make average money.

The people I know who make excellent money, a vast majority are highly intelligent + hard working. And that seems to be the general rule for those making good money anyway. You'd be a fool to say those who are average achievers are as LIKELY as those who are high-achievers to be just as intelligent/hard working. That is by DEFINITION incorrect, aka impossible.

But hey brah, keep living the american dream in your dream world, where kids are told in elementary school they can achieve anything they want. :luck:

I think you CAN ACHIEVE anything you want. If that was the case I think Barack Obama wouldn't have been the first black President. If you put your mind to it then you can do it. Please, stoop being a pessimist, it doesn't look good on you. Clearly, your cup of water is half empty. :laugh:

The majority of rich people are rich because they made their hard work worth more per unit time.

Yes, in our society doing that is much easier at a young age before family/mortgage/full-time work are realities. But having "better opportunities" than someone else isn't always about getting lucky breaks that are unfair. Sometimes that may be the case. But generally opportunity favors the prepared.

Is this a physics problem because Work/Time=Power. I think NOT! I have nothing else to say on this manner.

I would love an answer from the two of you about the question I asked previously.

Define working hard. Who works harder. Kobe Bryant who spent an entire summer shooting hoops everyday or a construction worker who spent an entire summer helping build a new road or a hospital or a school? Or let's do something even simpler. Who works harder? A medical school student (or a physician) or a low income single mom who works two jobs to make ends meet?

I am not saying rich people got lucky breaks on their path to success (which apparently = money). I am sure most of them worked hard to get there. What I am saying is that the poor people are poor not because they didn't work hard or spent time smoking weed (like druggeek said). It is because they were put in a situation where this was their most accessible option.

When you are poor and your parents work two jobs, you don't come home and get on your laptop to write up the paper you need to get an A - you go out and work your ass off to contribute to the family. When you are poor and you have brothers, sisters and other family members to feed, the last thing you plan on doing is going to college and get into even more debt. When you are living pay check to pay check, the last thing you want to do is put money aside for your kids' college fund.

Both you sound a lot like this guy.

Can someone answer his question because I love his post!



I, myself, grew up in a poor neighborhood, Bklyn, NY, but at the end I did accomplish a lot in my life. My mom makes less than 40, 000 a year, so I paid for college on my own by working two jobs and living off of scholarships. It is possible for kids from a lower income family to accomplish their dreams. If you want to be a doctor, you will be a doctor. It depends on how much you invested in your dreams. I feel like my ECs are probably better than some privileged kids on this forum, :laugh:. Actually, I say more than 75% I bet it is. I feel that people would look up more to someone who has the Rags to Riches story than someone who was just rich and snooty. Medical schools understand that there is a socioeconomic barrier and this is why there are plethora of opportunities for people who come from low income families.
 
I think you CAN ACHIEVE anything you want. If that was the case I think Barack Obama wouldn't have been the first black President. If you put your mind to it then you can do it. Please, stoop being a pessimist, it doesn't look good on you. Clearly, your cup of water is half empty. :laugh:
I think you are more wrong than anyone else has been wrong so far in this thread. Obama had A LOT of other things going for him as well, you should maybe look at his progression on the way to becoming president rather than "ohhhhhh black president!"

You cannot achieve anything you want, not even close. I've known people who worked harder in sports (because sports is a terrific example) than anyone could imagine only to finish with mediocre results. I knew guys who did that AND took performance enhancing drugs and still couldn't beat the guys who had more talent (who also didn't work half as hard and didnt take any drugs).

I'm simply being realistic, and people always quote people's successes as examples of showing you can do anything you want. Like Arnold Scwharznegger.... dude was a bodybuilding champion, successful politician, movie star, etc. And he came from a fairly poor family right.... so people love quoting him to show that anyone can do anything. What they forget is his incredible genetics for bodybuilding, which also paved his way into movies (as he fit the role of many characters he played) which again also paved his way into politics (due to increased fame).
There's people who worked harder at bodybuilding than he did, and took more drugs, etc. but yet they were nowhere to be seen or heard of.

Talent will always win, please be a lot more realistic.
 
I think you are more wrong than anyone else has been wrong so far in this thread. Obama had A LOT of other things going for him as well, you should maybe look at his progression on the way to becoming president rather than "ohhhhhh black president!"

You cannot achieve anything you want, not even close. I've known people who worked harder in sports (because sports is a terrific example) than anyone could imagine only to finish with mediocre results. I knew guys who did that AND took performance enhancing drugs and still couldn't beat the guys who had more talent (who also didn't work half as hard and didnt take any drugs).

I'm simply being realistic, and people always quote people's successes as examples of showing you can do anything you want. Like Arnold Scwharznegger.... dude was a bodybuilding champion, successful politician, movie star, etc. And he came from a fairly poor family right.... so people love quoting him to show that anyone can do anything. What they forget is his incredible genetics for bodybuilding, which also paved his way into movies (as he fit the role of many characters he played) which again also paved his way into politics (due to increased fame).
There's people who worked harder at bodybuilding than he did, and took more drugs, etc. but yet they were nowhere to be seen or heard of.

Talent will always win, please be a lot more realistic.
But isn't everyone a unique, special snowflake, who can do anything if they just want it enough?
 
Why do people keep giving their parents' histories as examples to support the idea that there is no difference in intelligence, hard work, and talent between different income levels? Aren't you just proving the opposite point? What you seem to be saying is that your parents were hardworking and valued education, but they were poor. And now you're on SDN, which indicates that you will most likely become a physician. How is that not an example of hard work and intelligence leading to a higher income eventually? It might have taken time, but you had a smart and hard working family and eventually saw the payoff.

Of course no reasonable person would argue that every "wealthy" individual is smarter and works harder than every poor individual. However, if we assume that both intelligence and willingness to work hard exist on a continuum, it follows that poorer communities will have a higher concentration of those who are less intelligent and/or work less hard. People get sensitive about these things because they take it as a personal attack, but that's not what it is. You can't make conclusions about individuals based on population averages. There are plenty of extremely intelligent and talented people who happen to be poor. There are also plenty of people who lack either intelligence or the desire to work hard and, as a result, are poor (or at least, live average lives).
 
Why do people keep giving their parents' histories as examples to support the idea that there is no difference in intelligence, hard work, and talent between different income levels? Aren't you just proving the opposite point? What you seem to be saying is that your parents were hardworking and valued education, but they were poor. And now you're on SDN, which indicates that you will most likely become a physician. How is that not an example of hard work and intelligence leading to a higher income eventually? It might have taken time, but you had a smart and hard working family and eventually saw the payoff.

Of course no reasonable person would argue that every "wealthy" individual is smarter and works harder than every poor individual. However, if we assume that both intelligence and willingness to work hard exist on a continuum, it follows that poorer communities will have a higher concentration of those who are less intelligent and/or work less hard. People get sensitive about these things because they take it as a personal attack, but that's not what it is. You can't make conclusions about individuals based on population averages. There are plenty of extremely intelligent and talented people who happen to be poor. There are also plenty of people who lack either intelligence or the desire to work hard and, as a result, are poor (or at least, live average lives).

lol gotta be more blunt. If you're poor, there's very good odds that you're not talented. A minority of people in poor communities may be, but it is just that, a small minority.

I watched a documentary on the Philadelphia ghettos, can't believe how dumb everyone sounded in the video (just their ways of thinking). No amount of education could turn those guys into "intelligent" people, but at best could give them a trades job. Same can be said for another documentary I watched on some native gangs, like the dudes are idiots, nothing more.
 
I think there needs to be a distinction between 'working hard' and 'working purposefully'. Plenty of people in my neighborhood growing up worked hard, long hours doing menial and/or manual labor. Their main goals were to provide for their families and not experience too much distress. Growing up in this environment, there wasn't the expectation to go to college, become a professional, etc, because no one else did this. There was zero guidance on college selection, SAT prep, etc, becuase no one else knew the path. Music classes, science fairs, etc, 'why would you do that?' Smart kids can easily follow the wrong path in these environments, and some mistakes you can't recover from fully (criminal record, drug offenses, etc).

Contrast this with someone from a household/environment where at least one parent is in a professional occupation. They've traveled the path of college applications, networking, test prep, job hunting, ECs, etc. They're able to provide some guidance to their children on these matters, and their children have role models to follow.

Life certainly is not fair, but that doesn't negate our obligation to improve society for the next generation by providing well-staffed, quality public schools and safety nets that allow families to dream and make goals for the future. The value of mentorship programs and caring adult role models (parents, teachers, doctors, etc) cannot be overstated.
 
I think there needs to be a distinction between 'working hard' and 'working purposefully'. Plenty of people in my neighborhood growing up worked hard, long hours doing menial and/or manual labor. Their main goals were to provide for their families and not experience too much distress. Growing up in this environment, there wasn't the expectation to go to college, become a professional, etc, because no one else did this. There was zero guidance on college selection, SAT prep, etc, becuase no one else knew the path. Music classes, science fairs, etc, 'why would you do that?' Smart kids can easily follow the wrong path in these environments, and some mistakes you can't recover from fully (criminal record, drug offenses, etc).

Contrast this with someone from a household/environment where at least one parent is in a professional occupation. They've traveled the path of college applications, networking, test prep, job hunting, ECs, etc. They're able to provide some guidance to their children on these matters, and their children have role models to follow.

Life certainly is not fair, but that doesn't negate our obligation to improve society for the next generation by providing well-staffed, quality public schools and safety nets that allow families to dream and make goals for the future. The value of mentorship programs and caring adult role models (parents, teachers, doctors, etc) cannot be overstated.

Let's be serious. There's always going to be poor people, and always going to be wealthier people. The resources are out there for a person to become something in his/her life. Nursing only takes 2 yrs at an affordable cc... you don't have to be a doctor to be at least a professional.

You can't blame anyone on the fault of a person over 18 yrs old about their life's success. I am not going to be worry about the next generation, since the ones who can see what's true will see.

This comes down to upbringing; crimes, and intelligence. If you're not motivated to do it, then it won't happen. If you just can't do it... then it won't happen. Sorry, go to the back of the line.
 
1. I don't even know how to respond to this. You are incredible naive to think that "most people get every opportunity". There are 7 billion people in this world and, trust me, most of the people barely get a few opportunities.

2. You are giving too much power to innately present talent and too little to developed, grown, nourished talent. It comes down to the question of nature vs nurture which has been debated thoroughly with no conclusion. So I will leave this at that.

3. Again, you are equating being academically successful to being intelligent/smart. Which I don't agree with.

This is completely correct. I am shocked not only by the data in the OP but by the supremacy with which medical students have responded throughout this thread.

If you live in a poor family your focus will be on providing the bare necessities, why would a poor family who struggles to makes end meets encourage a education which costs $ 300,000 and up for their child, when then can barely feed him. They want that person working, and providing so it would ensure that they have enough money to pay the mortgage/ rent, insurance and put food on the table, if they don't they would be taking a massive risk that could jeopardize the child's future and potentially ruin the family.

You are brainwashed from a early age into thinking in a certain way ever by the education you have.American Medical school admission is designed for those who follow the path of the upper-class white kid, anybody who thinks different will not be allowed.

Also people from other cultures that are not Asian or Caucasian don't really value senseless handwork for years without rewards, in fact they're probably smarter than you or me for choosing NOT to pursue a medical education in this outdated, overrated, overpriced system.

This has happened many times before, Immigrants were seen as inferior during the Gilded Age just because they were "too different". The superior white man had to spread his knowledge and beliefs upon the "poor chaps" on other isolated continents in the Age of Colonialism. You would like to think that because you simply put in the work and became a doctor you are superior to most others, it would make you feel awesome and would justify you wasting countless years of your life but its simply not true.

My cousin lives in Romania and is currently in clinical rotations in medical school directly from high school even though I skipped a year and had better grades than him at all points throughout our education.I am now only a senior in undergrad still in the process of applying. The truth is he is not inferior to anybody in any way and is at least as competent as the American physicians Ive seen and if he could work in the US he would not be able to be distinguished from other U.S trained physicians.

My point, the medical education system is elitist and flawed and the students selected from the applicant pool are simply the ones that comply with the outdated AMA views of a smaller number of physicians per population = better care which means a monopoly and a guaranteed salary, hence people from the upper class who have more resources and thus more to lose would be more likely to be accepted because they're exactly what the AMA is looking for.

Why do you think immigrants doctors who take and pass the boards are still not allowed to practice here unless they have a few years of American medical education?
 
The resources are out there for a person to become something in his/her life. /QUOTE]

Really, and how does a 13 year old gain access to said resources if he/she goes to a run down, under-funded low income school and is from a family that doesn't/won't encourage goal-setting? Luckily, the internet can make this easier (assuming the family provides it or there is sufficient access at school).

There are many opportunities for people to excel, and many resources for students/children. The problem is access to the opportunities and quality of opporutnities.

So, med school admissions naturally favor those who have had supportive, stable and enriching upbringings. That does not mean it is not possible for others to be admitted, but the type of school, and it's future career impacts, may be different.
 
Top