Poll on "Economically Disadvantaged"

[loveoforganic]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Right now, I sort of hate you to the max. Firstly, if you're going to test someone's intelligence, you're going to need to define intelligence. (Hint: Everyone's definition of intelligence is different.) Secondly, IQ tests have been used throughout history in order to discriminate against minorities, who inherently had fewer opportunities. People were forcibly sterilized based on their IQs. Low IQ is not the root of poverty, but poverty and inequality are the root of low IQ. Why? Because IQ tests don't test intelligence, but knowledge, more of which is available to the privileged classes. Please don't reply, as I fear I might grow dumber from reading any more of your posts.

/rant over

You're taking liberties here. Intelligence, like pretty much everything else psychological, is defined through constructs. In this case, those constructs have been developed for a pretty considerable amount of time, and it's not unanimous, but there's a pretty good agreement that we have a reasonable working construct and related tests for IQ. These tests often test on very different material, but they still tend to correlate rather well with each other.

Secondly, you can't determine causation from a correlation (there are ways you can eventually get at this, but that's not being talked about here). Our construct of IQ has a strong genetic component, but environmental factors give it signifcant variability about the 'genetic range.'

Finally, IQ test don't generally test 'knowledge' too much, in the sense it seems you're implying.

At any rate, don't get the impression from this post that I agree with CT.

 

[loveoforganic]

To be an excellent clinician, you need to be able to interact with and relate to your patients. If the patient trusts you and confides in you, you're more likely to be able to help him/her. Patients are more likely to place greater trust in someone belonging to their own race. The current URM system is an attempt to produce the greatest number of "excellent clinicians" for the broadest possible range of people.

Are you telling me you don't think CT could relate to the disadvantaged??? 😀

 

[labrat10]

As an ED applicant, I can tell you for certain that it was much harder for me to succeed in life than a middle-class- upper-class person. My parents did not attend college and worked low-paying jobs. We struggled with paying our bills and even my grandmother (who is well above 80) started working again to sustain the family. Even many of the problems within our family (as well as other low-income families) branch from our poverty: drug abuse, alcohol abuse, domestic violence. Most poor people also live in poor neighborhoods or go to bad schools where they are surrounded by negative peer influences.

I went to a good college with very little guidance. Most American high school students would know what AP exams are and the basic details on getting into college. I did not know since my parents don't know English and were immigrants. I had my eyes set on top colleges because I was strong academically. However, I did not know how to get in and had to do just about everything to secure my hopes: worked lots of jobs, took lots of AP tests, did lots of activities because I just did not know what top colleges were looking for. I also never took prep courses for the SAT and the MCAT. Everything was self-guidance, self-preparation. Since I attend a top college now, I am surrounded by many upper-class Americans from well-educated families. These students grew up hearing intelligent conversations whether they are about science, politics, etc. Their parents were also very helpful throughout their lives, whether it was helping them with their homework or providing insights on good career choices. I grew up hearing lots of complaints and arguments in the house and never had a deep conversation about science or medicine with my parents. My parents do not even know what residency is.

Looking back, I realize how far I really have gone. I used to dream of only becoming a teacher or artist. As I became more successful in school, I raised my own goals and now hope to become a doctor. Not only will I be the only doctor in my family, but the only professional and the first generation college grad.

And yes, I do hope to serve underserved patients across the US and around the world. Many people from poor backgrounds usually become doctors who serve poor communities. Since these communities have more health problems and less access to good healthcare, it is imperative that more doctors work there. Thus, I think it is necessary for med schools to recruit hardworking students from poor backgrounds who are passionate about helping their own communities as well as other poor communities around the US.

 

[Morsetlis]

Looking back, I realize how far I really have gone. I used to dream of only becoming a teacher or artist. As I became more successful in school, I raised my own goals and now hope to become a doctor. Not only will I be the only doctor in my family, but the only professional and the first generation college grad.

Good news: You are a teacher, and you can still become an artist.

c.1300, "Church father," from O.Fr. doctour, from M.L. doctor "religious teacher, adviser, scholar," from L. doctor "teacher," from doct- stem of docere "to show, teach," originally "make to appear right," causative of decere "be seemly, fitting" (see decent). Meaning of "holder of highest degree in university" is first found late 14c.; as is that of "medical professional," though this was not common till late 16c. Verb sense of "alter, disguise, falsify" is first recorded 1774. Related: Doctored; doctoring

I like how you said "only a teacher" though.

 

[StormingWynn]

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.

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.

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.

let's take an applicant with the following:

gpa
yr 1: 3.20
yr 2: 3.70
yr 3: 3.80
yr 4: --
Same number of credits each year so total gpa is 3.57. Is this applicant unqualified for medical school? Is this applicant less qualified than someone who has a 3.75 (same all three yrs)?

If this applicant was poorly prepared academically (due to attendance at an underperforming school system from k-12), and emotionally/socially and took some time to get up-to-speed, isn't it useful to know that? Should the applicant be required to use valuable space in the personal statement to describe childhood deprivations rather than using the space to describe reason for pursuing medical education and a career in medicine?

Seeing some explanation for a poor start and subsequent improvement helps me as an adcom. I am grateful that applicants who wish to self-identify as "disadvantaged" have that option.

On the other hand, self-identifying as disadvantaged when it does not seem justified does not help and it can result in a bit of a backlash.

Keep in mind that you can list your parents education and career information as well as your home address. That, too, provides valuable information about your background.

You're a wonderful and well spoken individual. 👍

 

[morning]

You're taking liberties here. Intelligence, like pretty much everything else psychological, is defined through constructs. In this case, those constructs have been developed for a pretty considerable amount of time, and it's not unanimous, but there's a pretty good agreement that we have a reasonable working construct and related tests for IQ. These tests often test on very different material, but they still tend to correlate rather well with each other.

Secondly, you can't determine causation from a correlation (there are ways you can eventually get at this, but that's not being talked about here). Our construct of IQ has a strong genetic component, but environmental factors give it signifcant variability about the 'genetic range.'

Finally, IQ test don't generally test 'knowledge' too much, in the sense it seems you're implying.

At any rate, don't get the impression from this post that I agree with CT.

Even the people (i.e. Steve Sailer) who use IQ to justify racist inclinations have stopped claiming that IQ tests measure intelligence. The fashion is to claim that IQ tests measure g, where g is the general ability to excel at whatever you do. The problem is that because the subject is SO controversial, and because a lot of people have very nasty ideas wrapped up in it, many of the studies done on how well IQ tests (aka g) really correlates to how well you're going to do in life are terribly flawed. People twist and fiddle with the data and methodology to their heart's content. So far it looks like IQ is a SOMEWHAT accurate measure of your ability to succeed, but more studies and less preconceptions are definitely needed.