Proof of shady practices in medical admissions

[criminallyinane]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Whatever... I say bring it on! If the Dean wants to make THIS an issue, I say good tidings. I have not left any identifiable data relating to my school or my Dean. Hey, this is exactly why these forums exist... to bounce ideas off of other people.

Yeah, but I don't know if posting internal emails that are really not your property (even with identifying info removed) can be considered "bouncing ideas off each other."

 

[medic170]

Man, you must be the biggest douche in the universe.

I haven't seen you contribute a single thought above and beyond a dogmatic view of the moral virtue of raw market economics. You gotta get some empathy dude.

Ross434, the bigggeesstttt douuuccchhheeee in the uuuunnnnniiiiverrrrrrseeeee!!!!

Obviously you are his moral superior with the immature name calling and all 🙄

 

[gringotuno]

Yeah, but I don't know if posting internal emails that are really not your property (even with identifying info removed) can be considered "bouncing ideas off each other."

Your argument may be right... however, I didn't post the email... i posted an edited email... which really is my creation. I like to think of myself as a fiction writer... loosely based on real life.

Another argument could be that the email became my property when they sent the email to me, rather than the person it was meant for. Plus, I did the right thing in forwarding it to the appropriate person. I could have held onto it and not forwarded it, effectively short circuiting this kids chances. But, I didn't...

And, the person that is at fault for that was the sender. If I was that person's superior and found out about this fu(kup, I would have fired that person in a New York min.

Lastly, as long as it has no identifying information on it, it hurts nobody. Consider my addition as an educational resouce. I like to think of myself as a mentor... and my first piece of advice to kiss as much weathly and connected ass as possible. For example, "Oh, you're the daughter of a medical school dean? Wow! You are the most attractive woman I have every seen! I love women who are thicker than they are tall... it's a big turn on for me. You wanna go out some time?"

Actually, I think that I have said too much... that example is loosely based on how I met my wife... again, I shouldn't have made such statements based on real life experiences.

 

[ptolemy]

Settle down, sparky. It was a joke. I just felt your "concern" for the possibility of my being outed was a little much... I made the disclosure in SDN, not the New York Times.

Nonetheless, I still don't think that such obvious methods of influence should exist. And, "at the end of the day", the one person who most likely is worthy of criticism is the punk who is on the waitlist. The most likely scenario is that the applicant made a conscious point to pass on his status to his "family friend" and that family friend started this sleezy process. If the "Major Donor" had really been interested in this kid's application, the donor would have pulled these strings long ago or maybe sent a letter of recomendation on his behalf. Trying to get these wheels greased this late in the process says to me that the "donor" really didn't care all that much about the applicant. So, assuming my scenario is true, the kid who can't get in to med school is the one most worthy of shame.

And, I don't have any parents in the medical field either. I guess we both are nobodys.

sorry, but first, im not the one who said you shouldn't be posting this, I could care a less. second, to say that rich kids should have some sort of legislation against them, and to post this thread with the hateful tone it has is just plain bitter. im not a "rich kid" and Ive worked hard to get to where I am. but I dont fault the people who try to game the system. I dont blame this kid if he tried to grease a wheel here or there, Id probably try to do the same thing if i had the chance. I actually kinda respect the kid a little (mind you just a little) for waiting until he got waitlisted to call in a favor. I could see that maybe he wanted to get in on his own merits, and got waitlisted. maybe he doesn't even know, but a parent/family friend started to grease the wheels to get him off the waitlist.
is the system unfair? yes. but its also unfair that the underrepresented minorities get in with poorer scores b/c schools want some sort of diveristy. I think diversity is great, but not at the expense of ability. no one complains (for the most part) about attempting to make class color "politically correct" is that unfair? yes. but who really cares? it happens, accept it and move on. there are too many more important things to care about. think of this as the rich man's affirmative action program. this is real life, not some utopia. learn how to game the system because you're gonna have to work in it later.

 

[gringotuno]

sorry, but first, im not the one who said you shouldn't be posting this, I could care a less. second, to say that rich kids should have some sort of legislation against them, and to post this thread with the hateful tone it has is just plain bitter. im not a "rich kid" and Ive worked hard to get to where I am. but I dont fault the people who try to game the system. I dont blame this kid if he tried to grease a wheel here or there, Id probably try to do the same thing if i had the chance. I actually kinda respect the kid a little (mind you just a little) for waiting until he got waitlisted to call in a favor. I could see that maybe he wanted to get in on his own merits, and got waitlisted. maybe he doesn't even know, but a parent/family friend started to grease the wheels to get him off the waitlist.
is the system unfair? yes. but its also unfair that the underrepresented minorities get in with poorer scores b/c schools want some sort of diveristy. I think diversity is great, but not at the expense of ability. no one complains (for the most part) about attempting to make class color "politically correct" is that unfair? yes. but who really cares? it happens, accept it and move on. there are too many more important things to care about. think of this as the rich man's affirmative action program. this is real life, not some utopia. learn how to game the system because you're gonna have to work in it later.

Wow. I really don't want to come off as judgemental, but I really think thats a pretty lame attitude to have in life. We all agree that such injustices happen in life but I would like to think that the first step towards solving these injustices is to not buy into them, perpetuating an unfair system. You're essentially rationalizing unethical bahavior and not willing to do anything to help it. Where do you draw the line and label something worth fighting against as opposed to turning the other cheek? Is it just a gut feeling or something more concrete? Is a victimless crime any less of a crime?

Since this is now interwoven into the affirmative action debate, I don't totally disagree with you in thinking other forms of favoritism are unjustified. But, I'd like to at least offer suggestions about how to find a better system. Although this will surely upset many readers, I think "lowering standards" for certain people trying to get into medical school is not the right way to solve the problem of racial underrepresentation. However, I truly view medicine as a service industry and I really do believe having a workforce of doctors that is completely dissimilar to the people we serve is a hindrance in the medical community's ability to provide the best care. I'm not positive about this idea but at least for now, that's my opinion. To be completely honest, I think economic class is a much more significant problem with doctors and medical students. Having going to an Ivy League undergrad institution, the vast majority of the "underrepresented minorities" came from very well off families with doctor and lawyer parents and prep school educations. Is that really diversity? Anyways, I went off on a completely unrelated tangent that will truly open the floodgates. The main point I was trying to make is that I believe it better to try and do something about these inequalities rather than just let them continue as they are.

Word to your mother.

 

[Obedeli]

Having going to an Ivy League undergrad institution, the vast majority of the "underrepresented minorities" came from very well off families with doctor and lawyer parents and prep school educations. Is that really diversity?

HEAR HEAR!

I am so tired of diversity = ethnicity which sort of equals economic background. The running assumption is, you're black you must have been raised poor (how stinking racist is THAT) and if you are white, you have had plenty of opportunity afforded to you. Nevermind the fact that there are POOR white people who are disadvantaged as well. There is a real danger when the society seeks to make everything "fair." Eventually, you will dig to communism, which sounds like the point of "not letting rich kids in...."

Whatever class warfare dude, I am by no means from a "rich" background but I do not fault those who were blessed with wealth. I fault sniveling, jealous, marxists who wish to impose limits on freedom in an effort of "fairness." Understand, I appreciate where you are coming from in regards to "buying" an acceptance. However, you quickly lost me with that "joke" about "rich kids." I HATE class warfare tirades.

 

[gringotuno]

I fault sniveling, jealous, marxists like you. Understand, I appreciate where you are coming from in regards to "buying" an acceptance. However, you quickly lost me with that "joke" about "rich kids." I HATE class warfare tirades.

That wasn't a class warfare tirade. That was a sarcastic joke. Two very different things... most importantly being sincerity.

Jealous? What do I have to be jealous about? If anything, having stupid rich kids in my med school class is a bonus to me... because 1) they are idiots at a much higher rate than others and 2) their social skills with patients leaves much to be desired and that hurt them in 3rd year much more than the lesser mortals. So, from a purely competitive standpoint, I say keep on bringing the rich kids.

Being serious now, I don't fault anyone from any class, race or economic bracket for things that the individual kids have nothing to do with. The only thing I will fault a person for is for knowingly trying to exploit a sleezy connection. Relating to my origional post in this thread, if the kid in question knowingly tried to pull his powerful connections, then I think that's pretty shi+ty. That kid is individually responsible for his favoritism. However, if someone received extra attention because he/she clicked a box on the AMCAS application that identifies him/her as an underrepresented minority, I wouldn't fault that kid but maybe the system. But, in the end, they are two different arguments and two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Obedeli]

That wasn't a class warfare tirade. That was a sarcastic joke. Two very different things... most importantly being sincerity.

Jealous? What do I have to be jealous about? If anything, having stupid rich kids in my med school class is a bonus to me... because 1) they are idiots at a much higher rate than others and 2) their social skills with patients leaves much to be desired and that hurt them in 3rd year much more than the lesser mortals. So, from a purely competitive standpoint, I say keep on bringing the rich kids.

Being serious now, I don't fault anyone from any class, race or economic bracket for things that the individual kids have nothing to do with. The only thing I will fault a person for is for knowingly trying to exploit a sleezy connection. Relating to my origional post in this thread, if the kid in question knowingly tried to pull his powerful connections, then I think that's pretty shi+ty. That kid is individually responsible for his favoritism. However, if someone received extra attention because he/she clicked a box on the AMCAS application that identifies him/her as an underrepresented minority, I wouldn't fault that kid but maybe the system. But, in the end, they are two different arguments and two wrongs don't make a right.

Agreed. If you state sincerely you were joking, I rescind my earlier statement.

I have noticed over the years on this forum many groups of individuals. There are those, who's parent's are/were physicians, who like it or not have an advantage to the medical application process. Not being one of these few, I still appreciate their circumstances and bear no ill will to their fortunes. OTHERS in my same boat, however, are filled with bitterness, jealousy, and rage at the advantage held by the blue blooded individuals. This is such nonsense. What many of these jealous, wrong side of the tracks but soon to be doctors don't realize is that they may someday have children who may (heaven help them) want to go to medical school and will take every advantage their parents (themselves) can offer (research positions, letters of rec, etc). Who can blame them? Now, I clearly draw the line to PAYING someone off for a spot. Like other postings,I do agree that much of life is run by financial influences. However, I do not feel the need to accept it and like it. Honor is the last word. Potential financial philanthropy is not a merit I would use to base a decision on medical school acceptance. I know many of you would like to say "you say that now, but what if you are really in that position." I still would say the same thing.

 

[Skip Intro]

How would you feel if this applicant's family connections made answers to tests available to him / her as a study aid? A very politically expedient maneuver, but students competing for hard to acquire residencies, e.g. ortho, might have an issue with this. It really would not effect those of us in the middle.

Slippery slope fallacy.

For those of you with more flexible difinitions of morality who question why the rest of us have taken issue with a clear cut -- if true -- case of nepotism and deceit; the reason for our being upset is this. Many of us would prefer to live and work in a meritocracy not beneath an aristocracy.

Come on! Do you honestly believe that's possible?

Listen, the entire "getting into med school" thing is a game. Not everyone who gets their spot deserves to be there. Likewise, not everyone who gets in will automatically become a great doctor. There are thousands - yes THOUSANDS - of qualified applicants turned away every year. This doesn't mean that, just because someone got a spot and matriculates, they deserve to be a doctor anymore than the guy who didn't get his.

Learn a lesson from this.

Especially before you look down your nose at "Dr. So-and-so" who maybe instead of getting a spot at Harvard went to Easy State U., Osteopathy U., or the Caribbean.

Is it fair? To drag out the overused and tired, old cliche: life ain't fair. Deal with it.

-Skip

 

[anamarylee]

I understand that the system is flawed and that we have to learn to work within it with its built-in limitations. However, to simply accept something that needs improvement "as is" for whatever reason is not right. In this particular situation: why not make the admission's process blind? An applicant gets a random number (unrelated to the order in which the application was recieved in order to avoid biass) assigned as their identification when they submit their application, throughout the whole process they are simply known as #_______. When interview time comes around the interviewer submits his assesment of the student to the Ad Comm but has no vote in deciding who gets in/who doesn't. I think this would make the whole ad process more fair, since people get in on their merits, not their wallets or pedigrees (or whatever other reason).

 

[ptolemy]

first off, I just re read my posts and am sorry if they sounded so inflammatory. that was not the intent. the point I was trying to make is that this is a pointless fight.

Wow. I really don't want to come off as judgemental, but I really think thats a pretty lame attitude to have in life. We all agree that such injustices happen in life but I would like to think that the first step towards solving these injustices is to not buy into them, perpetuating an unfair system. You're essentially rationalizing unethical bahavior and not willing to do anything to help it. Where do you draw the line and label something worth fighting against as opposed to turning the other cheek? Is it just a gut feeling or something more concrete? Is a victimless crime any less of a crime?

I think that I really don't see this as that big of an injustice, I see it as the way the world works, its not fair necessarily, but life isn't fair. I guess I don't see this as that unfair b/c most likely the kid will do fine in med school and has good enough merit to get on the wait list, which is a fairly big step, using connections to get in off the wait list I don't think is that much different than playing the game of shmoozing the secrataries, the falseness of the the interview, etc. The process is a game, and using all of your tools to accomplish your goal is part of that game. should it not happen? probably not, but it does. Then choose whether or not to fight for it. how do you choose whether to fight for it? do you have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the fight? If you think you can win, then fight. Im saying that this isn't worth fighting b/c it is a waste of energy, and won't accomplish anything.


Also, on the subject of buying your way into med school, I don't really know if this is considered buying your way into med school or being networked with people in the right place. Would the donor (it seems like an alum anyway) of the school not of donated the money or was the only reason to donate to get someone in? I really doubt this.

 

[thewebthsp]

The fact that we are not totally nepotistic and old-boy networked is progress. In a capitalistic system you will always have inequalities, including, for the right price, an acceptance to medical school. However, few have the enormous funds for such a price, and since a private institution can make up its own rules as to who it admits, it doesn't seem like a huge deal if 5% of the class comes in on less than equal merit. However a public medical school should never use financial gain as a reason to admit someone (being that they are founded to serve the population as opposed to a private org which bases itself on reputation as opposed to legislation).

In fact I accord great respect to those that can figuratively swim "up the stream" much like my own family when they immigrated to the US. Selling acceptances may become legit to a certain degree, esp with regard to undergraduate admissions. (as a joke -- "Qualified to go to college? For 900,000 you can go to Harvard!")

 

[ptolemy]

I understand that the system is flawed and that we have to learn to work within it with its built-in limitations. However, to simply accept something that needs improvement "as is" for whatever reason is not right. In this particular situation: why not make the admission's process blind? An applicant gets a random number (unrelated to the order in which the application was recieved in order to avoid biass) assigned as their identification when they submit their application, throughout the whole process they are simply known as #_______. When interview time comes around the interviewer submits his assesment of the student to the Ad Comm but has no vote in deciding who gets in/who doesn't. I think this would make the whole ad process more fair, since people get in on their merits, not their wallets or pedigrees (or whatever other reason).

I think this is a utopian idea that will never happen.

Also, I wouldn't want to be know as applicant #1234. An application is not a blind process. Who you are as a person, what you have done, what you have published, etc. is all very personal. To have an interviewer not on the ad com doesn't make much sense b/c it is easier to describe you as a person (from the interview) complete with inflection, than write is down on paper. As an example are we going to list a political platform on paper and say it is candidate #37864's platform, now go vote for candidates based on numbers? No-it's a personal choice. Yes, in admissions, race, pedigree, interpersonal skills, grades, everything plays a factor. Admissions is an insanely difficult job, and I would not want to be on the ad com. Every school has different criteria and reasons for admission. As someone else said, this screams of marxism. This would probably end up (granted on a slippery slope again) with only MCAT and GPA determining who should be in med school b/c everything else is so subjective and not quantifiable to a number.

sorry if this is mostly off the subject of $$ in admissions.

 

[Obedeli]

In a capitalistic system you will always have inequalities, including, for the right price, an acceptance to medical school.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigght. Is this to say only in capitalistic system are there inequalities? 🙄 . It kills me that this is accepted as fact. Go to North Korea, China or the former soviet union, tell me that party officials WERE FREAKING EQUAL! 😡 The modern univerisity experience, a breeding ground for future north korean subjects.

 

[f_w]

Other countries do the 'blind admission' thing. I was admitted based on a ranklist formed by multiplying MCAT x GPA. As a result I ended up studying with plenty of eggheads, but at least we didn't have any of that legacy or donation based admissions crap.

 

[medic170]

For you people who are arguing this based on your own morals, answer me this. It is the future, you are a wealthy doctor with a beautiful wife/husband and a great kid. Your kid wants to follow in his Dad's or mom's footsteps and go to X or Y medical school to become a doctor. can you honestly say that you are not going to do ANYTHING within your power to make that happen for your kid, like donating money to the X medical school library? If the answer is yes, and I bet it is regardless o whether you admit it or not, than you really have no place looking down on this stuff. Now, you don't have to post your answer or argue, just think about that in your own head, by yourself.

On the other end, you are dean of X medical school, costs are up, state support is down (for public schools), equipment is more expensive than ever, and there are new revolutions every day. Are you not going to work with your alumni to get more donations?

Now, if it were a marginal applicant, with many others surpassing him, I would agree that the practice is wrong. But if there are 2 similar applicants, is it REALLY so wrong to choose the one that will gain your school the most alumni support? It seems like the logical thing to do.

My 2 cents.

 

[RDickerson]

I would have to say that as long as the school was accepting qualified people such as yourself, it isn't that big of a deal. It's been said earlier don't be naive-blah, blah. In a way it's kind of true though, no school is going to pass up offers like that. The only way I'd see a huge problem with it is if they were going about accepting all students like that.

You're in, you should be happy. Enjoy it, study, become a doctor. End of story. I've learned that when you worry about everyone else, problems appear. Take care of yourself and your significant other (assuming you have one) and the rest will fall into place.

 

[f_w]

> can you honestly say that you are not going to do ANYTHING within
> your power to make that happen for your kid, like donating money
> to the X medical school library?

Yes, I can honestly say that I won't do that. If my (future) kids have what it takes to become physicians, I won't stand in their way. But I surely won't try to subvert the process to get them in.

 

[ice_23]

For you people who are arguing this based on your own morals, answer me this. It is the future, you are a wealthy doctor with a beautiful wife/husband and a great kid. Your kid wants to follow in his Dad's or mom's footsteps and go to X or Y medical school to become a doctor. can you honestly say that you are not going to do ANYTHING within your power to make that happen for your kid, like donating money to the X medical school library? If the answer is yes, and I bet it is regardless o whether you admit it or not, than you really have no place looking down on this stuff. Now, you don't have to post your answer or argue, just think about that in your own head, by yourself.

On the other end, you are dean of X medical school, costs are up, state support is down (for public schools), equipment is more expensive than ever, and there are new revolutions every day. Are you not going to work with your alumni to get more donations?

Now, if it were a marginal applicant, with many others surpassing him, I would agree that the practice is wrong. But if there are 2 similar applicants, is it REALLY so wrong to choose the one that will gain your school the most alumni support? It seems like the logical thing to do.

My 2 cents.

I'm actually fine with this sort of philosophy so long as the medical school in question makes it clear that alumni connections and ablility to donate ARE factors in admission.

If medical schools try to hide it (via "need blind" admissions) then they're purposely being deceptive.

-Ice

 

[brightblueeyes]

... But if there are 2 similar applicants, is it REALLY so wrong to choose the one that will gain your school the most alumni support? It seems like the logical thing to do.

But how do you determine how similar two applicants need to be for it to be okay to pick the lower ranking one over the higher ranking one? It seems like a slippery slope. What happens if the school is in a financial bind? Is it okay to dip a little bit lower? When it comes down to it, the vast majority of people who apply to med school would likely do okay and go on to become competent doctors. (Medicine may take a lot of work but it's not rocket science.) So where do you draw the line?

I don't think this sort of favouritism is as widespread as some posters on this thread seem to believe. Aren't there safeguards in place so admissions decisions aren't left up to just one person like a dean? (I'd really like to know.)

I know of a couple of schools where people go to a lot of trouble to try to ensure access is based on merit and merit alone. Sure, things will never be perfectly fair but that doesn't mean we should just give up and go with whatever seems most expedient.

And besides, if the underlying philosophy of a university's senior administrators is that the school's never-ending quest for money trumps concern for fairness, maybe there's a bigger issue here than med school admissions.

 

[beastmaster]

Those of you justifying this behavior by saying "medicine is a business" are psychotic.

In the business world, whether your best degree is from a high school or a top notch business school, you are on relatively equal footing to compete. One example is The Apprentice -- those who did not graduate college have been more financially successful than the college grads.

If medicine is truly a business, then let physicians compete with people who don't have a medical degree. Insanity? Debatable. My point? If medical schools want the *accepted* right to select candidates arbitrarily (connections, wealth), then they should have no right to claim a monopoly on who can ultimately practice medicine (not like they should, anyway).

Medicine is indeed a business, but this bahavior cannot be justified.

 

[parasiterex]

I haven't heard back from the dean yet... but I got a very brief email from the origional sender in Corporate Relations... just saying thanks for forwarding it to the appropriate person. Nothing more. I hope they are sweating bullets due to their major error.

Since I have no proof that my Dean actually gives any weight to such a request, is there anything I can do to voice my objection to such practices within my medical school? Any suggestions?

Thanks you all. Although some may think that "such is life"... I don't like favoritism in any form. And, although it may be inevitable, I would like to at least fight to have such blatant tactics be thought as unethical.

Thought at all about forwarding the email to your loacal paper, or better yet a national paper like the NY times?? Wouldn't it be interesting to hear what the public has to say about this kind of favoritism??

 

[entropy]

money talks and bull**** walks........................

 

[monkeyarms]

i am absolutely amazed that people are capable of getting so worked up about this. my guess is if this e-mailwere published in a newspaper, the collective population would shrug their shoulders and say "no ****." adcoms pare down a list to several hundred relative equivalents then end up selecting people based on input that is heavily laced with personal biases by those on the committee. a person not associated with the school writing a letter may or may not influence this selection process. the person who gets that letter written for them may be equally as outraged to see the LOR describing "how much so and so cares about blah blah blah" when it is obvious to everyone they are just some grade grubbing gunner who wants to be a doctor so they can get paid well and garner the adulation of the less informed. i don't know....i don't mean to come off as empathetic to the underqualified candidate who gets shoved through the door, but at the same time my med school experience has shown me very clearly that qualifications don't correlate very well with the quality of the medical student.

 

[NRAI2001]

What is the real issue taht you guys have against this? Is that this person is taking someone elses seat? Is it unfair that this person will go onto become a doctor (granted they pass the USMLE...etc on their own merit) in the future? Do you guys think its unfair because it wasn't you that was getting hooked up?

.

 

[Skip Intro]

I understand that the system is flawed and that we have to learn to work within it with its built-in limitations. However, to simply accept something that needs improvement "as is" for whatever reason is not right. In this particular situation: why not make the admission's process blind? An applicant gets a random number (unrelated to the order in which the application was recieved in order to avoid biass) assigned as their identification when they submit their application, throughout the whole process they are simply known as #_______. When interview time comes around the interviewer submits his assesment of the student to the Ad Comm but has no vote in deciding who gets in/who doesn't. I think this would make the whole ad process more fair, since people get in on their merits, not their wallets or pedigrees (or whatever other reason).

It's "as is" because forces beyond your current ability to accept are at play, and this is the way it will remain.

The whole concept of physician training in the U.S. is humorous, on some level, in that we think that people who get an acceptance to a U.S. medical school are somehow "special" and must be, by default, the "cream of the crop." The fact is, many many applicants could equally take that spot, complete the training, pass all the licensure exams, and become as good of physicians as the next guy/gal who actually got his/her spot - for whatever reason.

On the whole, the U.S. admissions system works. It makes the tough decisions to pick, overall, the best candidates that the Adcom thinks will be able to master the material and go on to become good physicians. Unfortunately, some won't make the cut - again, for whatever reason, whimsical or legitimate. So, is the system foolproof? Heck no. It never will be. Don't expect it to be. And, there will always be spots made for rich kids. And, I'd be willing to bet that they won't take a kid who doesn't have defendable numbers no matter how much of future contribution.

-Skip

 

[Fantasy Sports]

I hope all of you guys saying "medicine is just a business" and "medical schools can do what they want" NEVER complain about affirmative action. Otherwise you are being a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[visualwealth]

I agree these practices help give some a slightly BETTER education... Med school is so hard that if one can graduate then they are a quality applicant and , certain schools offer SLIGHTLY better educations...

If the individual is unqualified, he will NOT become a doctor. Remember, getting in does not make you a doctor, you still have to pass school, pass the boards, get a residency etc. How on earth does it let an unqualified person become a doctor? What it does do is allows the people at the school to get better training becasue they will be getting a lot more money donated to them, and no I was not let in by this method, I am poor and I earned it, but I really see nothing wrong with a school giving someone a chance in order to get donations. If they pass the Boards, then they ARE QUALIFIED TO BE A DOCTOR! That is the way the world works, people sometimes have to look out for their self interests.

 

[Neuronix]

Apologies if this has already been suggested, I didn't feel like reading all of this thread.

My suggestion would be to forward the e-mail to news providers in the medical school's area and see if they're interested in running a little column about it. That might get things really fired up 👍

 

[roadrunnerrita]

Well, at least the applicant was waitlisted to begin with -- from what I gather of the applicant pool, that means he or she isn't sub-par at all, and actually quite qualified to attend medical school.

 

[Kazema]

Well, at least the applicant was waitlisted to begin with -- from what I gather of the applicant pool, that means he or she isn't sub-par at all, and actually quite qualified to attend medical school.

It's also possible that the applicant got an automatic interview for being a legacy, and didn't impress the interviewer enough to be admitted.

But your suggestion is perfectly valid.