So, I've read a lot about how URM status gives applicants an edge during admissions but I just wanted to poll whether being socio-economically disadvantaged also gave an edge. Also, what do you guys think about this week's episode of House?
Poll on "Economically Disadvantaged"
- Thread starter 13199
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction score
- 5
I don't know whether it gives you an edge, to be honest. I don't think it should. It's calculated poorly. I mean, think about it. I work three jobs to pay my way through school. I'm in debt. Yet I'm not 'socio-economically disadvantaged' because my parents are wealthy and claim me as a dependent. The difference between me and a 'socio-economically disadvantaged' individual is that they get recognition for doing the same things I do. (Yes, I realize there are case-by-case differences, but I think you know what I mean.)
Also: I don't watch House. And I feel like the only person here who doesn't. Does this week's episode somehow relate to this topic?
Also: I don't watch House. And I feel like the only person here who doesn't. Does this week's episode somehow relate to this topic?
Oh I completely agree with the fact that there are flaws; my question was simply on a general basis. IMO, paying one's own way through school is a condition that transcends race or socioeconomic status, and because of that, it seems unfair that that sort of thing isn't given it's own 'spot' on the AMCAS. Even so, coming from an impoverished background can be a difficult hole to get out of.
And nope, House has nothing to do with this topic, but I hoped it'd be a common interest to promote replies to this topic.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 1
Well, coming from a disadvantaged background usually means that the government will pay for some, if not all of your education. I know I was "disadvantaged" for my first three years of college, because grants covered my education. Apparently, I'm not as disadvantaged now in my senior year.
However, to answer your question, I believe that the term "disadvantaged" implies that your parents are disadvantaged as well. You're not disadvantaged if your parents make a lot of money (I don't know what constitutes a "lot")
However, to answer your question, I believe that the term "disadvantaged" implies that your parents are disadvantaged as well. You're not disadvantaged if your parents make a lot of money (I don't know what constitutes a "lot")
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,753
- Reaction score
- 53,915
There is a difference between the childhood of the average applicant and the appropriately self-designated disadvantaged applicant.
Some of the disadvantaged applicants I've seen came from single parent homes and didn't know their father. Many had parents who never attended college, a few had parents who didn't finish high school. Some had parents who were physically or mentally ill, addicted, and/or incarcerated. Some were raised in foster care or by relatives.
Some disadvantaged students attended substandard schools, did not have access to AP classes, test prep for the ACT & SAT, or opportunities for enrichment activities such as science fair.
Some disadvantaged students lacked a reliable form of transportation, didn't have the cash to participate in sports teams, summer camp, music & dance classes and other extracurricular activities in grammar school and high school.
"Disadvantaged" refers to 0-18 years because it is supposed to be a measure of one's preparation for college and social support in childhood. If you grew up in a safe, middle-class environment you had a radically different upbringing than a disadvantaged student.
How much you work in college should be quantified in the experience section and you don't need to self-indentify as "disadvantaged" to inform the committee that you have worked while attending college.
Some of the disadvantaged applicants I've seen came from single parent homes and didn't know their father. Many had parents who never attended college, a few had parents who didn't finish high school. Some had parents who were physically or mentally ill, addicted, and/or incarcerated. Some were raised in foster care or by relatives.
Some disadvantaged students attended substandard schools, did not have access to AP classes, test prep for the ACT & SAT, or opportunities for enrichment activities such as science fair.
Some disadvantaged students lacked a reliable form of transportation, didn't have the cash to participate in sports teams, summer camp, music & dance classes and other extracurricular activities in grammar school and high school.
"Disadvantaged" refers to 0-18 years because it is supposed to be a measure of one's preparation for college and social support in childhood. If you grew up in a safe, middle-class environment you had a radically different upbringing than a disadvantaged student.
How much you work in college should be quantified in the experience section and you don't need to self-indentify as "disadvantaged" to inform the committee that you have worked while attending college.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reaction score
- 13
Great points!
Many UGs now actually track disadvantaged and first generation students separately. Research has repeatedly shown that these students have a much higher dropout rate (lower freshmen retention rate) and often have to be heavily remediated in math and English in order to succeed in freshmen-level courses. In addition, they lacked the social support networks most of us had. As Lizzy pointed out, most of us (myself included) had it made. Our parents knew what the SAT and ACT were and prepared us for them. They knew not only when and what they were but also what was on them (generally), etc. A 1st gen student doesn't have that. From focused interviews I've done w/ these students, many don't find out about things until they are just about to or after they happen (in terms of college admissions). They would often mention being oblivious to needing to take the ACT until the week before the school offered it, which was far too little time to catch up with everyone else who had begun preparation weeks (and really years in some sense) ago. These students do, however, usually get well-supported once in college. Nevertheless, attitudes at home can erode at this support as parents are rarely equipped in how to help their child through freshmen problems (e.g., roommate disputes, study habits, etc. that some kids have and seek advice from parents for and/or would have learned at a young age from their parents and siblings). For the kid coming out of foster-care, the outlook is even more dour. These kids lack anywhere to go. When they reach 18, they're booted from social services and many (most, actually) end up on the streets or in very low-paying part-time jobs where they make just enough to survive. Few of these kids will even make it to college, much less graduate. Those that do have achieved a feat that is far more deserving of recognition than getting a 35+ on the MCAT or achieving a 4.0 in college. Additionally, those kids will often be more likely to be willing to go back and serve the next generation of kids who went through exactly what they went through. They probably have a higher rate of going into such specialties as psychiatry or FP and working in, for instance, an inner-city or maybe contracting with a number of rehab and residential facilities.
Completely agree. I work a lot during college. My parent are well enough off, though, that I'm considered advantaged over others. I have quite a few friends who rely heavily on grants and whatnot to get by. They range from not working at all to 15-20 hours of WORK STUDY (which only forces you to study and thus get better grades). Any other money they need is received through loans. All the while, I'm at work (admittedly not doing anything difficult), but something that impedes my studying none-the-less. Somehow, though, them filling out loan and grant forms interferes with their academic more than my working does.. Interesting how that works.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,753
- Reaction score
- 53,915
All this work goes on in your experience section and gets counted. Getting financial aid, work-study, etc does not, in an of itself, justify self-identifying as "disadvantaged". Disadvantaged is not about college. It is about your childhood. I saw one applicant who was legitimately "disadvantaged" in childhood although he now made over $80,000/yr (non-trad) and had a free ride in college. Believe me, you would not wish his childhood on your child.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,924
- Reaction score
- 13
Read LizzyM's post. Disadvantaged status isn't about having to work while in school. (That's part of the experience section.) While I agree with you to some limited degree, there is a very real disadvantage that these students often face. One 1st gen student I knew in college was very smart, super compassionate, diligent, hard-working, etc., but really struggled in college due to the lack of emotional preparation for college. She was a straight-A student in HS w/ honors, AP, etc. She would make a great healthcare worker (she's not pre-med), but her college grades took a beating (cGPA <3.0). It wasn't for lack of trying but she made stupid mistakes. (One of the major ones was not feeling her work was up to par and so becoming perfectionistic and simply not turning things in despite finishing them.) Disadvantaged students are disadvantaged by their background, not by their responsibilities while in college.
LizzyM,
Could you clarify for me how this status is viewed at a committee? I do fall very much in this category and I think because of my experiences, I have learned patience and the ability to care for others but I still feel quite uncomfortable talking about my childhood openly. I know that that is something I need to work on, but I am wondering how and if it is discussed during interviews.
Also, does this status help with costs of tuition to those admitted mainly or is it a student's admission standing that is aids or a combination?
Thank you for bringing this up OP.
Could you clarify for me how this status is viewed at a committee? I do fall very much in this category and I think because of my experiences, I have learned patience and the ability to care for others but I still feel quite uncomfortable talking about my childhood openly. I know that that is something I need to work on, but I am wondering how and if it is discussed during interviews.
Also, does this status help with costs of tuition to those admitted mainly or is it a student's admission standing that is aids or a combination?
Thank you for bringing this up OP.
All this work goes on in your experience section and gets counted. Getting financial aid, work-study, etc does not, in an of itself, justify self-identifying as "disadvantaged". Disadvantaged is not about college. It is about your childhood. I saw one applicant who was legitimately "disadvantaged" in childhood although he now made over $80,000/yr (non-trad) and had a free ride in college. Believe me, you would not wish his childhood on your child.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 786
- Reaction score
- 54
I believe that being from a disadvantaged background helped me significantly in the application process, but not as much as growing up in a happy/safe home would have helped me. I can only imagine that I would have been in a better place during my early college years if I had not gone through the terrible things that happened to me before I was 18... being disadvantaged is not a "perk" or something you should covet.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,933
- Reaction score
- 34
I'm not sure about the whole "economically disadvantaged" thing, but I'm not really a fan of applicants getting an edge for something that was not of their own doing, i.e. minority race.
Oh yeah. I thought that this weeks episode of House was pretty awesome. The whole Wilson/House gay thing was HILARIOUS!!!
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
How about using a merit based system? Either one is good enough or not, people shouldn't be admitted for non-academic reasons whether it is an URM or Legacy admit.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,753
- Reaction score
- 53,915
The fact is, many, many applicants are good enough to flourish in medical school, far more than there are spots nationally. Should the spots go only to the highest scores or are there other factors that make a person a good candidate for medical school?
Some believe that those who made something of themselves despite hardship, poverty, lack of role models, will be compassionate and talented physicians who will generously give back to their communities. Many schools welcome these applicants into their academic communities.
As best as I can tell, the FAP is used to determine financial aid and not one's self-described disadvantage. Keep in mind that some people who have achieved high income in adulthood can legitimately claim disadvantaged childhoods.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 0
Spoken like a solidly middle class white dude.
You gonna go FP in downtown? BF Kansas?
URM and disadvantaged status adjust for your so-called god-damned merit-based system. If you're busy skipping the drug pushers and that creepy boyfriend of your mom's and the gang fights at your grade school and trying to learn English when not even the teacher knows it, you ain't gonna have much time to AP ACT SAT.
Now sit down.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
There are legions of individuals who could succeed in medicine for whom there aren't enough spots, hence SGU and Ross. US medical schools should accept the best candidates for positions not just people who can muddle through. Medical school is an academic endeavor designed to graduate people who will become excellent clinicians. If you want to graduate decent physicians choose the brightest individuals who apply. To your comment regarding giving back to one's community, many disadvantaged individuals go the specialty route. In fact if you want people to give back and be PCPs choose rural, middle class individuals.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
URM is absolutely ridiculous, the people who benefit most are middle and upper income minorities. Being financially disadvantaged doesn't prevent one from learning. You can teach yourself for the SAT or ACT, I did and scored a 1340/1600. Nobody is barred from a library because of their income. I can point to multiple people from my immediate family who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps without any of these policies. These are people who were actively discriminated against because of their religion and who were dirt poor. Guessing by your statement you're likely a beneficiary of these policies.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
Spoken words from a Dean of Admissions (a Chicago medical school) whom which I met " 40+ MCAT scores and 4.0 gpa's does not always make a great doctor, great people make great doctors!" Then he went into discussing how the medical community should somehow resemble our population (diversity). Look, I have a disadvantaged background and I am, sole heartily, pleased to state I will be attending medical school this fall. It was very difficult. Growing up, I didn't know the procedures about applying to an undergraduate institution. We did not have a guidance counselor at my school. Therefore, I didn't even know the difference between a private and public university. Was it my fault, 16 and 17 years old at the time, I did not know these things. I did not see it in my everyday life. Unfortunately, there are 100k+ teens that experience these very same issues. I had every excuse in the book (poverty, impoverished schools, etc.) not to be here but through hard work I made it through. So do I believe it is truly unfair for a school to admit 1-2 students each year solely because they made it through an obstacle that even the BRIGHTEST or WELL-OFF KIDS would not have conquered. No! 😎
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 786
- Reaction score
- 54
I don't know... some of us did grow up dirt-poor, some of us have been persecuted for our religious beliefs/lack thereof. The people who "benefit" (which I still question--how is growing up poor a benefit?) from a disadvantaged status are not bad candidates, not people with sub-3.0 GPA's. Most of them did very well, particularly given their circumstances, and many of them have personal qualities and experiences which benefit medicine.
👍
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
Well considering that I've faced religious discrimination too. I find it miraculous that I was able to get in to a BS/DO by the normal route. These people tend to be marginal at best candidates who perform poorly on standardized tests. The MCAT separates the men from the boys as does GPA. Please explain why people from these backgrounds do more poorly on them. The MCAT measures basic knowledge of material for the biological and physical end as well as your Verbal intelligence. People should be admitted based on how well they did. Also when did being a URM equal facing discrimination. Most URMs applying for med school that I know are wealthy and have never seen discrimination.
In a perfect world everyone would have the same opportunites, but its not a perfect world. URM and ED helps balance the playing field. Although I would emphasize the ED and less on URM because thats whats at focus right? I mean, URM are disadvantaged because they have a lower income than the average non URM.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree being financially disadvantaged doesn't prevent one from learning. But, being soci-economical disadvantaged is totally different from being a URM. "Disadvantaged" is not followed by "whats your ethnic background" box next to it. I do not see why people get worked up from schools simply admitting a few more URM students. Obviously, they have the credentials because they got it. Check the stats, most schools [besides Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse] typically have 1 minority student for every 10-15 non-minority student. Its not 50-50 or even 70-30!!!!!!!!! Medical schools are even less diverse than most universities, so what's the problem😕
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 2
Actually, the people that benefit most from these policies (such as Affirmative Action) are middle - upper class white females. Also, you can't discount the numerous prejudices and forms of discrimination faced by people of color in this country.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
Those are the minorities that YOU know!!!! Most minorities that I know (from home and college) are not wealthy. Of course, wealthy minorities will have access to all the needed conjugates that is necessary to succeed. However, those who are the true "struggling URMs" should not be tampered because a selected few does not make up the majority.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
How about there are even fewer high caliber minorities applying to medical school than college. With an MCAT >30, GPA >3.4 there were a whopping 1552 Black, Hispanic or American Indian applicants from 2005-2007. This works out to a whopping 500 or so qualified applicants a year. Assuming your 10% figure is true and that there are 16,000 URM med students you have 900 underqualified URMs a year. A 30 MCAT and 3.4 GPA would be the minimum to have a shot at an allopathic med school for a non-URM.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
The select few make up the majority of the college bound URMs. Perhaps you should read W.E.B. Dubois' comments regarding the talented tenth. Most people who receive a URM boost are not poor. Poverty in fact tends to be predicated on intelligence perhaps you should read the Bell Curve by Murray and Hernstein or the End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza.
This question is too complicated for a simple poll. I don't believe that disadvantaged students should be admitted with lower grades. The standards for admission should not be lowered.
I personally grew up in a middle-class neighborhood. My mother struggled to keep us in a good public school district because she couldn't afford private schools. When we experienced a family crisis during my first year of college, my mother went bankrupt while working 90-100 hours a week. My brother was hospitalized, and without my help, he would have been turned over to the state because my mom couldn't afford his medical bills. I dropped out of school (a prestigious school, at that) and worked full-time to make sure our family could care for him.
When I finally returned to school, I could only afford community college. My academic record all along has been mostly impeccable--A's with a B or B+ here or there, including during the difficult times. I don't feel that it's fair to impose a bias on disadvantaged students who had to go to CC's or less prestigious schools due to tough circumstances.
I think students who are at a disadvantage deserve a fair shot at medical school. I think given the circumstances, a student with a 3.7 from an "inferior" school and a 3.7 from Harvard (with the same MCAT scores) should be on the same playing field, as long as there is a compelling reason that the former student was disadvantaged.
I know some classmates of mine got into prestigious medical schools and full rides at state schools because they're black, had single mothers, and grew up in the NYC public school system. When they get in with a 3.2/29 MCAT because they're disadvantaged, it does two things: 1.) It undermines black (or other "minority") students by sending the message that they don't have to do as well as others to succeed, and 2.) It makes light of the struggle others have made. I'm making a generalization here...this extends to all of those with "minority" status, and those with upbringings that were less than ideal.
A close friend of mine is from South America, and he has created the "American dream" for his daughters. His oldest daughter is graduating either valedictorian or salutatorian of her class this year, and she is capable of doing whatever she chooses based upon her own ability and merits. He knew nothing about affirmative action, and was thoroughly disgusted when he learned that regardless of what his daughter does, people might wrongly conclude that she's a doctor (or lawyer, or whatever) because the standards were relaxed for her. That's untrue and unfair, but it's a real consequence of lowering standards for certain groups.
Med schools should place less emphasis on where the grades are coming from and more on what they actually are. I achieved the same grades at a prestigious school as I did later at a CC and a state university. They should focus on the individual student, their academic merits, and letters of recommendation. T
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
What about other groups who have experienced discrimination? Asians come to mind, ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? What about Jews, Catholics or Mormons, they've face religious discrimination. Why don't they get Affirmative Action.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 2
I never said they didn't deserve it. You were making the claim that URM status is unfair. I refuted that.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
No you really failed to do that you said they faced discrimination. Lots of people do. My best friend who is white, went to a predominantly black school and was called slurs and treated poorly. Is he a URM for having suffered that? I mean honestly do you believe what you're even saying? Why aren't Asians URMs? Because they do well and get accepted by their own merits perhaps? What about Jews, several thousand years of opression, the holocaust and they can still get in by their own merits. Skin color doesn't determine whether you face discrimination. Neither does wealth or poverty.
FutureCTDoc, you talked about how most URMs are rich and then about knowing white kids being picked on by black kids, despite the fact that we all know that throughout history, the opposite is overwhelmingly true. And then you say that skin color doesn't determine whether you face discrimination 😕
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 2
Well, you're friend example is simply anecdotal evidence, which certainly cannot be used to make a point. He still benefits from white privilege. I agree, Catholics, Jewish people, and others have faced incredible prejudice in the past. It's not nearly as relevant today as the prejudice seen by women and people of color. The people you mentioned have (for the most part) overcome the oppression. The purpose of these programs is to try and eliminate the prejudice.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
FutureCTDoc,
Listen, if URM or ED was unfair it WOULD NOT BE prevalent within the current system. These applications was installed because the "old way" was unfair. I don't know why you have this distaste towards URM? Do you hate seeing URM succeeding? Did a URM take your seat from a school?? Look, Im going into medicine to change and save lives? And I dont care what color, class, or orientation my future patients will have. That is my biggest motivation. I believe that I can make my mark within medicine, in which grades and MCAT scores cant defined. By the way, I did well in those two areas. That is what wrong with the pre-medicine world today. If you are worried about a slight influx of URM students then you should rethink medicine as your career choice, which cause for a great deal of contact with other people. It wont change the quality of healthcare. Personally, I would not overwhelm myself with an issue that makes up <10% of the medical community. Personally!...... Each school that I interviewed at had a plan regarding increasing diversity (age, race, sex, religion, and culture)-- which all reflects our society. They (the schools) know they are in desperate need of change. Healthcare is not bias toward anyone, so why should medical school be?
Listen, if URM or ED was unfair it WOULD NOT BE prevalent within the current system. These applications was installed because the "old way" was unfair. I don't know why you have this distaste towards URM? Do you hate seeing URM succeeding? Did a URM take your seat from a school?? Look, Im going into medicine to change and save lives? And I dont care what color, class, or orientation my future patients will have. That is my biggest motivation. I believe that I can make my mark within medicine, in which grades and MCAT scores cant defined. By the way, I did well in those two areas. That is what wrong with the pre-medicine world today. If you are worried about a slight influx of URM students then you should rethink medicine as your career choice, which cause for a great deal of contact with other people. It wont change the quality of healthcare. Personally, I would not overwhelm myself with an issue that makes up <10% of the medical community. Personally!...... Each school that I interviewed at had a plan regarding increasing diversity (age, race, sex, religion, and culture)-- which all reflects our society. They (the schools) know they are in desperate need of change. Healthcare is not bias toward anyone, so why should medical school be?
Last edited:
Good call Prism328, it was just a simple question that came to mind, but I really appreciate the discussion that this has sparked, especially since the debate has stayed professional and not overly personal.
And riverjib, you're right; this issue can't be simplified to a poll, but I was just looking for an quantitative way to evaluate opinions.
To all, how about this hypothetical:
Two students are accepted to the prestigious and highly selective Generic University. Student A had been "socio-economically disadvantaged" between the ages of 0 and 18, while Student B had been well off. Once they were in college, both of their at-the-moment situations balanced out. Their parents magically acquired the same occupations, income, and quality of life. The students received equal preparations for medical school in college, worked equally hard, and received identical GPA/MCAT scores. Coincidentally, they did the same ECs, had identical LORs, and had the same plans for their future in medicine. Suppose the single medical school to which they applied had one spot remaining and had to choose between them. Regardless of the ridiculousness of this situation, do you think they should choose Student A or "flip a coin"? I guess they could also choose Student B, but that doesn't address the issue I'm trying to create. I ask this because after the age of 18, they had equal circumstances and hardships and efforts. So if one chooses Student A, can it be considered a pity acceptance, since the two are otherwise the same person? Just something to think about...
A logical fallacy. The fact that a set of policies is "prevalent within the current system" doesn't make it fair. History has more than once shown that the masses often make immoral or unjust decisions. For example, the persecution of Jews and other minorities during WW2 - "prevalent within the current system" at the time and also unfair.
For the record, I'm not saying the the URM/ED policy is fair or unfair; I was just pointing out a flaw I noticed.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
100% agree, I do believe they deserve the same decision criteria; however, committees will look at the one that stands out the most. Student A-the "How did he/she do it" or Student B "How we cannot select him/her?"
Oh, I agree with you on that, given the situational information I provided. But i wanted to bring attention only to 'pity' idea. So let's also assume that these two have the same personality, drive, and other qualities.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok, I know you are trying to state an example, but comparing medical admission practices to the persecution of people is a sp hybridization (180 degrees) turn
. Our medical schools gradually recognized the legitimate flaw within the admission profiles and they sought out to correct the discrepancy. URMs and EDs do not get THAT much presidential treatment or the numbers would be drastically higher. No matter what, non-URMs will always win the count, so it is not really a flaw.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
Thats the issue. Admin committees are looking to diversify their schools. No two people are going to be the same, they are steering away from that dogma. My best friend from college, who is a non-URM & ED, had a sub-par GPA and MCAT score. But he will make a great doctor, and he got into a excellent med-school. Its all about who is going to fit-in at their institution.
Ok, I know you are trying to state an example, but comparing medical admission practices to the persecution of people is a sp hybridization (180 degrees) turn
Is there much of a difference? Just kidding, I hope I didn't undermine the suffering of millions of people with that joke. And that example was the first thing to come to mind.
And of course, it's always better to be the rich white kid with a sibling on the Harvard Med admissions committee...
But in all seriousness, it's impossible to draw the line between quantitatively accepting students with lower test scores and qualitatively 'giving points' to those with a disadvantaged background. I dislike that the system often carelessly says, "Oh look a black Native American kid, let's get him and show the diversity of our student body" but I definitely think there is something substantial to say about the minority orr inner city or rural or working-to-pay-for-school students who have thought, "Okay, here's my situation, here's my obstacle, I hurdled them to be here today." Whether that story gets a "Great, URM/ED student, you're in" or "Boohoo, URM/ED student, we're all equal", I think it says something for itself about someone who worked for their success.
Hallelujah!
I'm not religious, but I thought I'd add some comic relief to my 2 cents.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction score
- 5
I hadn't known the exact definition to adcoms on what 'socioeconomically disadvantaged' meant until LizzyM defined it for me. Admittedly, it's different.
Is it fair to give someone a bonus because of it? For undergraduate, maybe. But not past that. You shouldn't ride it forever. Sure, you've endured hardships. They might always be with you. You struggled for years in a system that doesn't make a ton of sense and does not treat everyone equally. And if you had family problems, you probably had them bad.
But the fact is, if you're socioeconomically disadvantaged, you're more likely than I am to get grants, scholarships, etc. Schools will walk hand in hand with you to make sure you stick it out while they completely ignore the rest of us. I don't resent you for it. You earned it. But it should stop there.
Your personal statement is where you get to tell your story. That should be the extent of it. You shouldn't get extra attention for something out of your control that happened four, five, ten years ago. You've got the college degree. Your disadvantage has been made up for, in my opinion. You should get into any graduate school just on your own hard work.
(Sorry; I'm in a bad mood. Just got rejected for yet another scholarship. I'll probably reach 70 rejections by the end of the month, and I'm ready to ceremoniously burn every scrap of mail I've gotten that says, "We're sorry, but..." or any variation thereof.)
Is it fair to give someone a bonus because of it? For undergraduate, maybe. But not past that. You shouldn't ride it forever. Sure, you've endured hardships. They might always be with you. You struggled for years in a system that doesn't make a ton of sense and does not treat everyone equally. And if you had family problems, you probably had them bad.
But the fact is, if you're socioeconomically disadvantaged, you're more likely than I am to get grants, scholarships, etc. Schools will walk hand in hand with you to make sure you stick it out while they completely ignore the rest of us. I don't resent you for it. You earned it. But it should stop there.
Your personal statement is where you get to tell your story. That should be the extent of it. You shouldn't get extra attention for something out of your control that happened four, five, ten years ago. You've got the college degree. Your disadvantage has been made up for, in my opinion. You should get into any graduate school just on your own hard work.
(Sorry; I'm in a bad mood. Just got rejected for yet another scholarship. I'll probably reach 70 rejections by the end of the month, and I'm ready to ceremoniously burn every scrap of mail I've gotten that says, "We're sorry, but..." or any variation thereof.)
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I agree 150%. Im not a supporter of "Accepting because of _______" As long as the student meets the credentials, worked hard, and deserving, they should have a fair chance. Even if their are one or two minor issues. Believe it, Einstein failed his very first college entrance exam. Yep🙄
And Janieve,
Things will work out just keep believing. You only need one yes, maybe two, but they will come. I recommend reading this book titled "The Secret". I read it and tried it and I can say it is really motivational. It teaches you how to believe. If you believe you will get another "no" in the mail, then guess what it will come. On the other hand, visualize yourself opening a letter and it saying "yes, yes, and yes", and it the real letter will come. I know this may sound crazy and heck, but its worth the try. Plus it will make u feel better.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
First off no URM took my seat and I was accepted to my first choice program. Secondly I presume most physicians will care for patients irrespective of their race or ethnicity. Good grades and MCATs serve to show that someone is intelligent enough to survive and thrive within the rigor of medical school. My issue isn't URMs per se; I think that the system should be color blind. What makes diversity so great? Yes I said it. Most schools lack intellectual diversity, should there be AA for conservative or libertarian professors in hiring and students in admissions? Should Meharry, Howard or Morehouse become more representative of the US population? When one considers that there are only 500 qualified URMs per http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table25-mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt-raceeth.htm it appears they are over represented in medical schools assuming greater than 3.4 GPA and 30 MCAT. Please tell me why an academic endeavor should place scholastic achievement second to achieve diversity. Why should a school try and reflect society? Remember that a medical school attracts people with IQs of 120+ generally, according to Hernstein and Murray, that is one SD+ out from the norm. People accepted are nowhere near representative of society they tend to be of the intellectual elite. The medical school admissions is more representative of this group.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 0
BOOTSTRAPS BOOTSTRAPS BOOTSTRAPS
auto fail.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 1,658
You're funny, and not in a good way.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 0
Bootstraps are never the answer. For one, bootstraps are expensive. This means that they are not necessarily an option for the ED.
Secondly. It's a big job to wade through all the race / class fail on this thread, but let me just say this: I hope to hell that you people can stow this **** when it comes to the real world.
Seriously? Hating on a poor kid whose GPA is a hundredth higher because he checked ED? Or a black kid regardless of economic status, you white boys are still more privileged BECAUSE you're white, regardless of your economic status.
Also, the bell curve and most of your other references in here are refuted as bigoted / evo-psych / asinine claptrap.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 22
I don't know where to go with this. I am the story that this thread is about. I grew up very disadvantaged. I am white. My mother is a drug addict and left us a long time ago. My father doesn't have a college degree and has trouble holding down a job for long. He is unemployed as often as he is employed. I basically raised my younger brother. My dad had no idea what it took me to get into a good school or how hard I have to work to get into medical school. My high school in rural Wisconsin is one of the lowest ranked in the state as far as test scores go. I have no family other than my brother when I think about it. When I'm away at school I often go months without talking to my father. I haven't seen or heard from my mother in years. I go to school for free because of my past. That doesn't make up for the fact that I grew up without parents. I volunteer, do research, work, get good grades,am preparing for the MCAT just like the rest of you. I know a ton of middle to upper class kids that have the same grades as me, but I wouldn't want most of them as my doctor. They don't have any idea what life can be like and they never will. Even if they work to help pay for their really nice apartment or new car or weekly bar tabs, they are still in a better position to get into med school than ED students. I don't ask for pity, just a level playing field. Considering the demographic of med schools, I think ED students should get extra consideration when compared to similar well off applicants.
