question about race and ethnicity for med school admissions

[soxman]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm aware that some med schools consider race and ethnicity for acceptance. Do they consider the applicant's place of birth as his nationality? I know some guys who were born elsewhere but their nationality is India.

 

[uhohspaghettio]

I am assuming you are Indian. Just because you were born in Nigeria or Somalia or something, you can't try to claim yourself as a URM. At the interview, they will be like what da...

 

[DDSBound]

I'm aware that some med schools consider race and ethnicity for acceptance. Do they consider the applicant's place of birth as his nationality? I know some guys who were born elsewhere but their nationality is India.

And you would want to be accepted based only on your race? Real good.

 

[Meatwad]

And you would want to be accepted based only on your race? Real good.

You ever hear of the poop hotdog?

 

[DDSBound]

You ever hear of the poop hotdog?

No but it doesn't sound tasty. What is your point?

 

[EndSong]

Yes, medical schools do consider race. There are very, very few Latinos and Black students applying, and an even smaller number of them have very competitive scores. They are desireable because they add diversity to schools because they have very different cultural experiences and often overcome a lot of difficulty. Nigerians are usually looked as desireable for similar reasons.

 

[Ihateverbal]

it also has to do with the fact that hispanics and african americans, once they graduate, are more willing to work with the underserved populations, which is something we all need.

 

[Flopotomist]

it also has to do with the fact that hispanics and african americans, once they graduate, are more willing to work with the underserved populations, which is something we all need.

I am going to start popping some popcorn and getting ready to watch this one...

 

[gotmeds?]

Yes, medical schools do consider race. There are very, very few Latinos and Black students applying, and an even smaller number of them have very competitive scores. They are desireable because they add diversity to schools because they have very different cultural experiences and often overcome a lot of difficulty. Nigerians are usually looked as desireable for similar reasons.

To make things even more complicated, AMCAS categorizes "hispanic" as ethnicity and "black" as race. So you can have hispanics of any color (from white to black) and many black students won't be African-American.

 

[EndSong]

it also has to do with the fact that hispanics and african americans, once they graduate, are more willing to work with the underserved populations, which is something we all need.

Yeap this is also true. Unfortunately, African-Americans still suffer numerous health disparities - they are more likely to use drugs, be involved with inner city violence, hypertension, heart disease and diabetes. Also by creating more doctors, we help create culturally sensitive environments to help address their unique needs. The same is true of latino populations who have a very different culture and language. Its important to have ethnically latino doctors who can understand these patients and address their different needs. This is also because minority patients just trust minority doctors more and that leads to much better health care.

 

[LizzyM]

Place of birth, race and ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic) are all asked. I can recall at least one instance where an applicant explained in his PS why he should be considered non-URM despite being born in a country where one would expect URM (his parents were missionaries).

Your origins and the culture(s) in which you were raised including early schooling and language proficiency (even if not claiming fluency) might make an interesting paragraph in a PS.

 

[Meatwad]

No but it doesn't sound tasty. What is your point?

The old saying is that a premed would eat a poop hotdog for admission into a medical school. You were surprised/disgusted at the OP for being willing to use their ethnicity to gain admission. Compare using ethnicity and eating a poop hotdog; do you see the variance in severity of action needed to take to get into medical school? If not, here it is: if a premed would eat a poop hotdog to get into med school, they sure as hell would milk their race in a second if it would get them in.

 

[GuzzyRon]

I am going to start popping some popcorn and getting ready to watch this one...

Well, things should go smoothly if they keep it civil and don't allow it to degenerate into another "URM vs. Nazi vs. red-neck vs. white-supremacist vs. what-have-you" war....

Otherwise, I'm just going to be like you, grab some popcorn and 'enjoy' the 'war' as it unfolds and as the 'warlords' exchange caustic tirade from their verbal arsenals pending the inevitable annihilation of all warring parties by a mod. 😀

 

[Sir Buckethead]

"Also by creating more doctors, we help create culturally sensitive environments to help address their unique needs."

And as an added bonus, we help sow the seed of doubt in the patients of URM doctors about the abilities of the fellow in the white coat.

 

[Kraazy]

"Also by creating more doctors, we help create culturally sensitive environments to help address their unique needs."

And as an added bonus, we help sow the seed of doubt in the patients of URM doctors about the abilities of the fellow in the white coat.

That would be the case if the doctor were not qualified. But a simple look at the porcess required to become a practicing physician, not to mention the odds of success at various competitive stages, would tell you that the vast majority of phsyicians are well qualified for their jobs. A few slip through the cracks, but I doubt it has to do with race. Besides, patients have resources to check the credentials of their physicians, from the med school they attended, to any fellowships and other honors they may have racked up.
If the patients have doubts regarding their doc's ability based on race, that's a consequence of their prejudice, and their own problem to deal with.

 

[Sir Buckethead]

"If the patients have doubts regarding their doc's ability based on race, that's a consequence of their prejudice, and their own problem to deal with."

Some might say that med school admissions, by allowing underqualified URMs in, is encouraging people to judge doctors at least partially based on race.

After all, it's exactly what they are doing.

 

[TheRealMD]

"If the patients have doubts regarding their doc's ability based on race, that's a consequence of their prejudice, and their own problem to deal with."

Some might say that med school admissions, by allowing underqualified URMs in, is encouraging people to judge doctors at least partially based on race.

After all, it's exactly what they are doing.

Things get nasty when you start heading down that route.

Are there difficulties for a URM? Mostly. Should they be "rewarded" for it? Not really. But this isn't a perfect society and adcoms are only picking the lesser of two evils (no URM doctors leads for worse healthcare for that part of the population according to research).

Believe what you want to believe, but crying that race was a deciding factor in letting someone else in and you getting rejected is going a bit too far.

 

[Sir Buckethead]

"Are there difficulties for a URM? Mostly. Should they be "rewarded" for it? Not really. But this isn't a perfect society and adcoms are only picking the lesser of two evils (no URM doctors leads for worse healthcare for that part of the population according to research)."

When it's your own personal kidney (lets say) on the line, you want the very best person caring for you. Yes, anyone who gets through med school obviously had to work very hard for it. But we are not talking about good. We are talking about the best possible. You only have one backup kidney, after all. I'd rather the person caring for me look nothing at all like me than have him be my identical twin who is less capable.

Maybe I'm idealistic, but I like to think that med schools have a responsibility to the public to choose and produce the very best doctors they can.

"Believe what you want to believe, but crying that race was a deciding factor in letting someone else in and you getting rejected is going a bit too far."

I haven't applied yet myself, but I do agree that that is a lame thing to do. Statistically it might be justified (I mean, less qualified URMs do supplant borderline whites/asians based on race. it happens) but to say "he took my place" ignores the many other intangibles of admissions.

 

[bwells46]

Believe what you want to believe, but crying that race was a deciding factor in letting someone else in and you getting rejected is going a bit too far.

<Southpark Redneck voice>They took our jobs!</Southpark Redneck voice>

 

[gotmeds?]

Maybe I'm idealistic, but I like to think that med schools have a responsibility to the public to choose and produce the very best doctors they can.

They do! But why do you assume that someone with better grades and a better MCAT score would necessarily be a better doctor than someone with lower scores? I mean, if that's the case, why even bother with the whole application process? Let's just rank everyone by GPA and MCAT and have the top student get first pick of schools and then move on down the list until there aren't any spots left. We'd get some great doctors that way!

 

[BigRedPremed]

They do! But why do you assume that someone with better grades and a better MCAT score would necessarily be a better doctor than someone with lower scores? I mean, if that's the case, why even bother with the whole application process? Let's just rank everyone by GPA and MCAT and have the top student get first pick of schools and then move on down the list until there aren't any spots left. We'd get some great doctors that way!

I never understood this argument. People who are against affirmative action are not arguing for an admissions system based solely on GPA/MCAT. They simply want a system where race is not as important as GPA, MCAT, EC's, recs, interviews, etc. Are you saying that URMs have much better personalities, EC's, compassion than ORMs and that's why they're being let in with lower test scores?

There is clearly some correlation b/w MCAT/GPA and your performance as a doctor. Anyone have that Baltimore Sun article from 3 years ago which states that doctors produced by med schools with the lowest MCAT scores are subject to more disciplinary action than doctors from another med schools?

 

[bwells46]

I never understood this argument. People who are against affirmative action are not arguing for an admissions system based solely on GPA/MCAT. Are you saying that URMs have much better personalities, EC's, compassion than ORMs and that's why they're being let in with lower test scores? There is clearly some correlation b/w MCAT/GPA and your performance as a doctor.

Anyone have that Baltimore Sun article from 3 years ago which states that doctors produced by med schools with the lowest MCAT scores are subject to more disciplinary action than doctors from another med schools?

I'd like to see this article so that I can take a look at their statistical methods. Correlation between two data items does not mean that one causes the other.

 

[joj884]

They do! But why do you assume that someone with better grades and a better MCAT score would necessarily be a better doctor than someone with lower scores? I mean, if that's the case, why even bother with the whole application process? Let's just rank everyone by GPA and MCAT and have the top student get first pick of schools and then move on down the list until there aren't any spots left. We'd get some great doctors that way!

Thats a childish argument tactic called "reductio ad absurdum" meaning that you try to defeat a proposition by extending it to ridiculous lengths in order to portray it as extreme and unworkable, its like junior high debate quality so we can do better!

For those opposed to affirmative action to lament the importance of race in the admisions process does not mean that they suport a pure numbers process but rather merely one where your skin color and ethnicity are not such prized accidents of fate that those whom have the "desirable ethnicity" can apply as a seperate type of applicant and be given special consideration.

The most famous articulation of a racially integrated, healthy society was King's "content of character not color of skin" and favoring some (which necessarily means disfavoring others) because of race breaks the essentail sentiment of equality behind that statement. Don't forget it's only "Afirmative" action if it hits your group, for everyone else its "Negative Action" notice how euphemistic and doublespeak the name itself is.

There are many who validly point out the public policy arguments for Affirmative Action (without it there would be even fewer minorities, minority communities have more health problems etc.) but to be intellectually honest those people need to admit that they are choosing what they consider a public good (having as many minority docs as we can get) over true equality in the admissions process. Also the poorer health standards characteristic of minority communities corelate to income as much as they do to race (with the excepton of some things like sickle cell etc.)

As for the "minorities lead a harder life and must be smarter than the white dude who applies if they've made it that far" argument--these URM categories don't consider family income or where you grew up just race. What special racial categoy do West Virginia dirt poor white folks get?

In the end I'm with the best doctor a society can produce crowd (not numerically chosen per se but certainly not largely chosen via skin pigmentation either.) I was a poli-sci, sociology major and there have been some very good studies done on organized AA schemes since they were widely employed in govt. in the Nixon administration and they have shown the greatest benefit going to white females.

 

[IWant2BeADoctor]

I'm aware that some med schools consider race and ethnicity for acceptance. Do they consider the applicant's place of birth as his nationality? I know some guys who were born elsewhere but their nationality is India.

If you were born in India you get...there not another Indian applicant designation.

If your Indian or East Asian you can count that as a strike against you. If anything they expect more out of you.

Everybody knows it's every Asian Parents' dream to see their kids go to Med school.

 

[dbhvt]

Also the poorer health standards characteristic of minority communities corelate to income as much as they do to race (with the excepton of some things like sickle cell etc.)

I'm not sure where you are getting this information. There is a dependence on income, yes, but minority status is, in fact, an independent predictor of poor health outcomes.

I'm not going to enter the URM debate, but I just wanted to point out your mistake.

 

[joj884]

As is income, thats all I'm saying. Part of the minority health problems are also the overlay of financial disparity as well. Thats waht I mean

 

[IWant2BeADoctor]

As is income, thats all I'm saying. Part of the minority health problems are also the overlay of financial disparity as well. Thats waht I mean

Financial disparity is part of Capitalism.
It's totally normal, even healthy. The more capable will always be on top while the less capable will always be on the bottom.

 

[flaahless]

Financial disparity is part of Capitalism.
It's totally normal, even healthy. The more capable will always be on top while the less capable will always be on the bottom.

That is only fair if all the competitors started out equally. However, with our nations tumultuous history, some people got a head start over others and have attained wealth and have been able to keep that wealth amongst themselves. Is that fair to the others? No. So how can we correct it? Hence the topic of discussion.

 

[IWant2BeADoctor]

That is only fair if all the competitors started out equally. However, with our nations tumultuous history, some people got a head start over others and have attained wealth and have been able to keep that wealth amongst themselves. Is that fair to the others? No. So how can we correct it? Hence the topic of discussion.

The redistribution of wealth so that everyone gets an equal share is just an naive idealism. It's called Communism.

Inequality exists because of differences in ability,intelligence,looks, ect. That's just the way things are and that's what makes the world such an interesting place.

 

[dbhvt]

Financial disparity is part of Capitalism.
It's totally normal, even healthy. The more capable will always be on top while the less capable will always be on the bottom.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "healthy". There is a significant body of research out there supporting a negative correlation between income inequality and life expectancy. To be clear, a state with more financial disparity will have a higher mortality rate.

So, financial disparity may be a normal part of capitalism, but I think you would be hard pressed to say that it contributes to better health.

 

[flaahless]

The redistribution of wealth so that everyone gets an equal share is just an naive idealism. It's called Communism.

Inequality exists because of differences in ability,intelligence,looks, ect. That's just the way things are and that's what makes the world such an interesting place.

^^^ Did I say that? I think you're mistaken. Think of it like this, you and I are running a race to get a pot of gold. At the beginning of the race, I chop off your feet, tie you up, beat you, rape your women and children, and then take off running. As a result, I make it to the gold first. Now, I have this giant pot of gold that I pass down to my children, who pass it down to their children and so forth. You're sitting their broken, physically and financially. I can't blame your inability to reach my level of wealth on capitalism, after I've had such a clear advantage. That's pretty stupid.

 

[FSUUndergrad]

Yes, medical schools do consider race. There are very, very few Latinos and Black students applying, and an even smaller number of them have very competitive scores. They are desireable because they add diversity to schools because they have very different cultural experiences and often overcome a lot of difficulty. Nigerians are usually looked as desireable for similar reasons.

So are Hispanics that are not Puerto Rican or Mexican also desirable to Med Schools?

 

[freelove]

The redistribution of wealth so that everyone gets an equal share is just an naive idealism. It's called Communism.

Inequality exists because of differences in ability,intelligence,looks, ect. That's just the way things are and that's what makes the world such an interesting place.

I don't think flahhless was advocating Communism anywhere in that post and I don't think you do either. Capitalism is just as flawed as Communism, if not even more so.

Inequality does exist yes, and it probably always will. However, I think that in this country, inequality for African-Americans did not come about because they were weaker, less capable, or less intelligent than they're white counterparts. It came about because they were enslaved and the white ppl had guns.

Inequality exists because ppl, all ppl are naturally flawed, and don't always do the right thing. AA exists because this is he govt.'s way of trying to make up for 400 yrs. of oppression, however they could be doing alot more.

 

[SketchLazy]

There are many who validly point out the public policy arguments for Affirmative Action (without it there would be even fewer minorities, minority communities have more health problems etc.) but to be intellectually honest those people need to admit that they are choosing what they consider a public good (having as many minority docs as we can get) over true equality in the admissions process.

How can you support that statement as true when it is clearly the issue at debate here? The whole heat of the discussion is whether if left alone, the admissions process is fair to all applicants. Yet you completely skip that and make a statement saying that only people who are 'intellectually honest' with themselves would see affirmative action as unfair. You have to remember that not everyone believes that there is a level playing field to begin with when people are applying to college, medical school etc and you have to address that...but you make all your arguments and assertions based on your view that the admissions process, without AA, would be fair.

And You can't label affirmative action as doublespeak without first proving that it is just a semantic name for an unfair admissions process. I can't speak for others, but I am not a prole who bases my public policy views on how 'purty' the name is. I understand that by 'affirmative action,' some people will be excluded as others are accommodated for. But what I believe is that the whole admissions process is not fair in the first place and affirmative action is what makes it a level playing field.

 

[Dimness]

Yeap this is also true. Unfortunately, African-Americans still suffer numerous health disparities - they are more likely to use drugs, be involved with inner city violence, hypertension, heart disease and diabetes. Also by creating more doctors, we help create culturally sensitive environments to help address their unique needs. The same is true of latino populations who have a very different culture and language. Its important to have ethnically latino doctors who can understand these patients and address their different needs. This is also because minority patients just trust minority doctors more and that leads to much better health care.

Not necessarily calling out anybody, but has anybody actually pinpointed what exactly these cultural disparities are and why they're such huge barriers to health care? Stuff like this just puzzles the hell out of me sometimes. I'm getting the gist it's just more than a language barrier.

 

[doinmybest5840]

The redistribution of wealth so that everyone gets an equal share is just an naive idealism. It's called Communism.

Inequality exists because of differences in ability,intelligence,looks, ect. That's just the way things are and that's what makes the world such an interesting place.

Agreed.

 

[joj884]

How can you support that statement as true when it is clearly the issue at debate here? The whole heat of the discussion is whether if left alone, the admissions process is fair to all applicants. Yet you completely skip that and make a statement saying that only people who are 'intellectually honest' with themselves would see affirmative action as unfair. You have to remember that not everyone believes that there is a level playing field to begin with when people are applying to college, medical school etc and you have to address that...but you make all your arguments and assertions based on your view that the admissions process, without AA, would be fair.

And You can't label affirmative action as doublespeak without first proving that it is just a semantic name for an unfair admissions process. I can't speak for others, but I am not a prole who bases my public policy views on how 'purty' the name is. I understand that by 'affirmative action,' some people will be excluded as others are accommodated for. But what I believe is that the whole admissions process is not fair in the first place and affirmative action is what makes it a level playing field.

Issue 1: Applying is not totally equal

Duh. Some kids have parents who know doctors and shadowing is a breeze, others are in state with great schools, some are rich, some poor. Thats obvious but if your looking for factors that increase the inequality of applying I would rank getting a special designation and admissions preference based on your race right up there. If an applicant has led a very tough life then write about in the PS and move to an "economic" afirmative action rather than a racial one.

Issue 2: Criticising the name of "Affirmative"

when I criticized the naming of AA I did so after explaining that what is affirmative to some is negative for others (limited number of seats makes for a zero sum situation) and if I read your post correctly you concede that AA benefits the applications of some groups and thus harms that of others. If there is a stated desire to have applicant type x and status x is determined by skin color and I was born a member of group y then that desire for x benefits members of group x and harms me and theres no way (short of Michael jackson type measures of changing my skin color) of me moving into that peferred group; simple.

" But what I believe is that the whole admissions process is not fair in the first place and affirmative action is what makes it a level playing field."

I obviously disagree. As I alluded to in my original post marking URM status does not guarantee that this person has led a difficult life at all. Perhaps they were raised in harsh circumstances and sent to poor schools (why we should support vouchers but side isue) perhaps not. If the goal of AA is to level the playing field as is commonly asserted then look at family income or solicit stories of special hardship (which the application does) but don't just have a stated desire for certain racial groups. I also alluded to the research showing the greatest benefit of AA has been white women to help offer evidence to supporters of AA like yourself that these policies often backfire (and not just in the ethical, unfair sense) in policy outcomes.

As for the diversity benefit to a class do you think Howard has special scholarships specifically for Jewish kids or Asians or white kids? I rather doubt it so I also feel that there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in the affirmative action regimes at many places.

I'll give an example of something which I think is fundamentally unfair and disruptive to a fair and harmonious society::The UMich AA case that went to the supreme court. It was discovered that there was a point system and that a pefect 1600 SATs was worth 12 out of a 150 point system and that being classified as African American, Hispanic or native American was an automatic 20 point bonus. I believe that if no amount of academic achievement can overcome your skin color that that is deeply immoral and unfair. Now you might say that system was struck down by the court in 2001 but many people defended it and stuff like that still goes on. How did the UMich adcom know that an asian 1600 SAT didn't escape N. korea with his mother and grow up poor and that the minority kid wasn't Theo Huxtable? They didn't and that is why I chimed in against racially based AA. So you asked that I "prove" that AA is unfair before I disparage the name (I doubt you will change your political beliefs because of a conversation on SDN but I'll try to "prove" it to your satisfaction), there is one example. (In a 2006 referendum in Michigan 58% voted to ban AA in state related institutions like colleges so others are catching up and that is a Democratic state.)

If after reading my earlier post and this one you don't understand my position then see Thomas Sowell because he can lay out a better case than I but my bottom line is that your ethnicityshould neither help you nor harm you when competing in America.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/affact.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010426.html

 

[SketchLazy]

Stuffhttp://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010426.html...more stuff...even more stuff

I left my final statement without any support because I also believe that I can't change anyone's mind because 1)I don't have a Ph.D. in any social disciplines, 2)this is a forum for medically minded individuals, 3) and I know where you stand on the issue. That's why I just said, 'I believe...' instead of some stronger form of argument. My gripe was the allusion to 1984 and your comment about intellectual honesty. I don't think anyone is saying affirmative action is fair in itself because by definition it is preferential treatment. Yeah...in those respects, it is simple. But the kind of 'equality' which is at the center of the matter is not 'equality' among everyone, just equality between URMs and non-URMs. I think the questions are: 'Are URMs at a disadvantage?' 'In what ways?' 'Is it only financially?' 'Would AA solve any disadvantages if there are some?' Not: 'What is affirmative action?' 'So how does affirmative action work?' 'Does admitting a URM really take the place of a non-URM?' I think most are beyond that.

 

[flaahless]

I left my final statement without any support because I also believe that I can't change anyone's mind because 1)I don't have a Ph.D. in any social disciplines, 2)this is a forum for medically minded individuals, 3) and I know where you stand on the issue. That's why I just said, 'I believe...' instead of some stronger form of argument. My gripe was the allusion to 1984 and your comment about intellectual honesty. I don't think anyone is saying affirmative action is fair in itself because by definition it is preferential treatment. Yeah...in those respects, it is simple. But the kind of 'equality' which is at the center of the matter is not 'equality' among everyone, just equality between URMs and non-URMs. I think the questions are: 'Are URMs at a disadvantage?' 'In what ways?' 'Is it only financially?' 'Would AA solve any disadvantages if there are some?' Not: 'What is affirmative action?' 'So how does affirmative action work?' 'Does admitting a URM really take the place of a non-URM?' I think most are beyond that.

Good post.

 

[UVABranch]

my bottom line is that your ethnicityshould neither help you nor harm you when competing in America.

The fact of the matter is that it does, more often than not in favor of the majority. Because of this fact (I can find reports/studies etc to support this if anyone thinks I made an incorrect generalization), some institutions think it is necessary to "even the playing field." I don't think that's such a bad thing...

I have waaayyy more to say about this, but my assumption is that those (this applies to posters other than just the one quoted above) who make assumptions based on URM status are likely to need to have an experience being in the minority to fully appreciate it.

Think: Ice Cube's show on FX Black. White.

 

[flaahless]

Issue 1: Applying is not totally equal

Duh. Some kids have parents who know doctors and shadowing is a breeze, others are in state with great schools, some are rich, some poor. Thats obvious but if your looking for factors that increase the inequality of applying I would rank getting a special designation and admissions preference based on your race right up there. If an applicant has led a very tough life then write about in the PS and move to an "economic" afirmative action rather than a racial one.

Issue 2: Criticising the name of "Affirmative"

when I criticized the naming of AA I did so after explaining that what is affirmative to some is negative for others (limited number of seats makes for a zero sum situation) and if I read your post correctly you concede that AA benefits the applications of some groups and thus harms that of others. If there is a stated desire to have applicant type x and status x is determined by skin color and I was born a member of group y then that desire for x benefits members of group x and harms me and theres no way (short of Michael jackson type measures of changing my skin color) of me moving into that peferred group; simple.

" But what I believe is that the whole admissions process is not fair in the first place and affirmative action is what makes it a level playing field."

I obviously disagree. As I alluded to in my original post marking URM status does not guarantee that this person has led a difficult life at all. Perhaps they were raised in harsh circumstances and sent to poor schools (why we should support vouchers but side isue) perhaps not. If the goal of AA is to level the playing field as is commonly asserted then look at family income or solicit stories of special hardship (which the application does) but don't just have a stated desire for certain racial groups. I also alluded to the research showing the greatest benefit of AA has been white women to help offer evidence to supporters of AA like yourself that these policies often backfire (and not just in the ethical, unfair sense) in policy outcomes.

As for the diversity benefit to a class do you think Howard has special scholarships specifically for Jewish kids or Asians or white kids? I rather doubt it so I also feel that there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in the affirmative action regimes at many places.

I'll give an example of something which I think is fundamentally unfair and disruptive to a fair and harmonious society::The UMich AA case that went to the supreme court. It was discovered that there was a point system and that a pefect 1600 SATs was worth 12 out of a 150 point system and that being classified as African American, Hispanic or native American was an automatic 20 point bonus. I believe that if no amount of academic achievement can overcome your skin color that that is deeply immoral and unfair. Now you might say that system was struck down by the court in 2001 but many people defended it and stuff like that still goes on. How did the UMich adcom know that an asian 1600 SAT didn't escape N. korea with his mother and grow up poor and that the minority kid wasn't Theo Huxtable? They didn't and that is why I chimed in against racially based AA. So you asked that I "prove" that AA is unfair before I disparage the name (I doubt you will change your political beliefs because of a conversation on SDN but I'll try to "prove" it to your satisfaction), there is one example. (In a 2006 referendum in Michigan 58% voted to ban AA in state related institutions like colleges so others are catching up and that is a Democratic state.)

If after reading my earlier post and this one you don't understand my position then see Thomas Sowell because he can lay out a better case than I but my bottom line is that your ethnicityshould neither help you nor harm you when competing in America.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/affact.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3010426.html

Man, Affirmative Action has never been "racially based." It originated as a policy to counter the oppressive actions of the dominant social group in America. So your assertion that AA backfired by placing white women in positions of power is actually wrong, in that sense, affirmative action succeeded by helping an oppressed group gain power.

 

[joj884]

I left my final statement without any support because I also believe that I can't change anyone's mind because 1)I don't have a Ph.D. in any social disciplines, 2)this is a forum for medically minded individuals, 3) and I know where you stand on the issue. That's why I just said, 'I believe...' instead of some stronger form of argument. My gripe was the allusion to 1984 and your comment about intellectual honesty. I don't think anyone is saying affirmative action is fair in itself because by definition it is preferential treatment. Yeah...in those respects, it is simple. But the kind of 'equality' which is at the center of the matter is not 'equality' among everyone, just equality between URMs and non-URMs. I think the questions are: 'Are URMs at a disadvantage?' 'In what ways?' 'Is it only financially?' 'Would AA solve any disadvantages if there are some?' Not: 'What is affirmative action?' 'So how does affirmative action work?' 'Does admitting a URM really take the place of a non-URM?' I think most are beyond that.

//AA has mostly helped white women//

yeah doesn't destroy the rationale for AA if your intending to aid mostly white women but many AA advocates support it because they believe it supports group _____ and its been interesting to see just which groups have benefitted the most over the decades.

Agreed that SDN threads on these ceaslessly controversial issues change few or no minds. Your post is somewhat vague in that you ignore much of what I said but I think we are here with the discussion

Me: AA only helps you if your group is desired, often AA goes to ridiculous lengths see U Mich point system example and yet people defend it.

you: Agreed in part but the groups that are preferred have been discriminated against in the past and thus giving them preference is a remedial attempt at justice.

Certainly that is the stated attempt but one that is rooted out of a philosophy that two wrongs (the horrible long rooted original discrimination and the preference of AA regimes which discriminate in less harmful ways) make a right. Perhaps you believe that there should be attempts at slavery reperations and the like and that only taking action today against those not alive during the previous evils will satisfy justice. I disagree but have already blown alot of time on SDN and we're not going to say anything that hasn't been said by folks more eloquent than ourselves (see Tom Sowell for my side and Cornell West or any number of others for the other)

Me: the name Affirmative is euphemistic and I invoke the Orwellian description of doublespeak

you: prove AA is unjust before you describe how you consider the name to be euphemistic

You know I will never be able to prove that to you because you fundamentally believe that "justice" can only be achieved through AA so you asking me to "prove" it before I am allowed to lay out my attack on the name is tantamount to don't atttack my position until I change my position to match yours which means no debte would occur.

The "ntellectualy honest"statement (see original post)

I invoked King's formulation of judge on "content of character not color of skin" as the most oft quoted goal of a racialy fair society and said that to consciously deviate from that through AA and partially judge and give a certain degree of preference to one applicant who is URM is a departure from that statement. Now I know that pro AA advocates will say that its the only way to achieve equality for URM applicants but its still a departure from that statement. Perhaps you consider it a necessary departure for the common good but its still a departure. So I stand by my original comment that choosing AA is a choice of a certain public good (having as many URM docs as we can get)over color blindness in admissions.

Issue equality between URMS and non URMS

If you want to help the disadvantaged applicant there are ways to determine how disadvantaged they have been (income, hardship essays but no ethnic categories of URM or non URM) that are fairer and account for wealthy and lucky URMs and disadvantaged white dudes better than AA by racial group ever will (Theo Huxtable applies to med school, should he still get to apply with a special URM status, was his life harder than mine? If you focus a certain degree of preference on our ethnicity you won't really know.

Clarity is more important than agreement and I've done my best to be clear and I've gotta get some work done.

 

[joj884]

The fact of the matter is that it does, more often than not in favor of the majority. Because of this fact (I can find reports/studies etc to support this if anyone thinks I made an incorrect generalization), some institutions think it is necessary to "even the playing field." I don't think that's such a bad thing...

I have waaayyy more to say about this, but my assumption is that those (this applies to posters other than just the one quoted above) who make assumptions based on URM status are likely to need to have an experience being in the minority to fully appreciate it.

Think: Ice Cube's show on FX Black. White.

That is indeed an assumption; you know nothing about me or my ethnicity or my life experiences or anything else really. Which is why we make arguments. Its a pitty that if you do have "so much else to say" you couldn't have said something more serious. This is a type of argument tactic you learn to identify in junior high: Ad Hominem. I disagree with this person so I will address not his individual points and specific examples and tell him why I disagree but rather assert that he is not fit to comment on the issue. You can do better. Suppose you encounter a Black commentator who lived through segregation like Tom Sowell or a Hispanic who considers AA unjust. We need argument not attacks on the arguer.

IS it a FACT that non URMS benefit when applying to med school or grad school absolutley not and hopefully eventually being non URM will not hurt nor help your chances (Justice O'connor envisioned a 25 year window for AA in Gratz and Gutter v. Bollinger and although I think her opinion was utterly illogical and don't understand how she can think something is constitutional or unconstitutional for a time window maybe that means my kids will get to apply in a system that doesn't care about their ethnicity)

 

[Critical Mass]

All of the Texas schools now have mandates that URM status will positively influence an application.

 

[riceman04]

Financial disparity is part of Capitalism.
It's totally normal, even healthy. The more capable will always be on top while the less capable will always be on the bottom.

👎

Applying generalist theories never works

 

[belgianbeerguy]

^^^ Did I say that? I think you're mistaken. Think of it like this, you and I are running a race to get a pot of gold. At the beginning of the race, I chop off your feet, tie you up, beat you, rape your women and children, and then take off running. As a result, I make it to the gold first. Now, I have this giant pot of gold that I pass down to my children, who pass it down to their children and so forth. You're sitting their broken, physically and financially. I can't blame your inability to reach my level of wealth on capitalism, after I've had such a clear advantage. That's pretty stupid.

Is it fair to assume that all people of a particular ethnicity start this race at such a great disadvantage?

I again reference the example of the poor white/asian kid who started life living in a car with his/her parents. The point a lot of us are trying to make is that there has to be a better way of determining who starts out with their feet chopped off and who doesnt. A society should not make general assumptions about large populations.

Besides, I don't think that the URM issue is intented to help disadvantaged students. I think theres a section on the AMCAS that asks about hardships (I don't quite remember how it's worded). My understanding is that URM status is intended to make patients feel more comfortable with docs of their own ethnicity.

Which introduces another assumption that is rarely discussed. How do we know that people of ethnicity X will treat people of ethnicity X? In most large cities, it's a melting pot, so it's crapshoot as to whether you'll see a doc of your ethnicity.

I would like to see at least one study that says URM status is successful in its goals of making more patients feel comfortable.

 

[EndSong]

The logic presented here is very convincing. I think that AA is fundamentally wrong. I can't see why a Vietnamese refugee (disadvantaged) and a middle-income american-born hispanic (URM) would both have special consideration.

 

[IceMan0824]

The logic presented here is very convincing. I think that AA is fundamentally wrong. I can't see why a Vietnamese refugee (disadvantaged) and a middle-income american-born hispanic (URM) would both have special consideration.

This is the castle of my master, Guy de Loimbard.

I'm French! Why do think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king-a?!

 

[belgianbeerguy]

The logic presented here is very convincing. I think that AA is fundamentally wrong. I can't see why a Vietnamese refugee (disadvantaged) and a middle-income american-born hispanic (URM) would both have special consideration.

would this Vietnam refugee explain this in that hardships section of the AMCAS? Does anyone know how that question is worded? Something to the effect of: if anything has hindered your application, please explain.

also, do med schools actually read this (I truly hope they do)? Doubt if any of us know.

 

[flaahless]

Is it fair to assume that all people of a particular ethnicity start this race at such a great disadvantage?

I again reference the example of the poor white/asian kid who started life living in a car with his/her parents. The point a lot of us are trying to make is that there has to be a better way of determining who starts out with their feet chopped off and who doesnt. A society should not make general assumptions about large populations.

Besides, I don't think that the URM issue is intented to help disadvantaged students. I think theres a section on the AMCAS that asks about hardships (I don't quite remember how it's worded). My understanding is that URM status is intended to make patients feel more comfortable with docs of their own ethnicity.

Which introduces another assumption that is rarely discussed. How do we know that people of ethnicity X will treat people of ethnicity X? In most large cities, it's a melting pot, so it's crapshoot as to whether you'll see a doc of your ethnicity.

I would like to see at least one study that says URM status is successful in its goals of making more patients feel comfortable.

You're taking my post out of context. My post was to refute another member's assertion that the economical disparities between different ethnicities is due strictly to capitalism. It isn't.

For instance, when slavery ended, where did all the slaves go? They didn't have land, couldn't read, had no money. Colleges were segregated so an education was difficult to come by. So obviously, in the race to prosperity, white america had a two lap headstart, and then for the next 100 years until the 60's, they were able to keep minority groups down.

Now, here we are 140 years later. White america still has the lead. Why, because of capitalism, partly, but mostly because they started with the lead. So how do we correct it? well, we need programs that actively couteract the oppression of the past and gives the oppressed peoples a "turbo boost" in the race. Such as AA. It worked for white women, their catching up pretty quickly.

I understand your reasoning that ethnicity does not necessarily equate to life difficulties. I agree. AA is not 100% fullproof, but it is certainly better than doing nothing and acting like american society is not influenced by the seeds of the past.