Race classification to med schools: possibly controversial thread

[ridethecliche]

---

Members don't see this ad.

As long as you are fine with discrimination that can not be proven. Based on people's names and photos I could (illegally) discriminate against certain groups of people (Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, etc) and no one could prove anything because there would be no way of classifying applicants and determining if something sinister is going on.

This was something interesting from Salon that came across my desk today:

I've read that report from Salon as well. It was fascinating. It's amazing how much discrimination can be covert/unconscious.

 

[drmak89]

I've read that report from Salon as well. It was fascinating. It's amazing how much discrimination can be covert/unconscious.

Linking it, in case anyone else is interested: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/04/10_ways_white_people_are_more_racist_than_they_realize_partner/

 

[Chemistry>Physics]

Sure, that is a fair point. That is how it's supposed to work in theory, and in many cases it actually does work that way in practice. From my own personal experience though, a very common situation is that my URM classmates who ended up applying to medical schools actually came from socioeconomic backgrounds that were well above average not just for their ethnic group but for the population as a whole. I just don't see why giving 100 bonus points to the son of two wealthy, African immigrant doctors is fair to the Asian or white kids from working class families.

These things should be looked at on a case by case basis rather than making blanket statements by race, else you will end up with outrageously unjust situations. The US is a huge, huge country of 300 million+ people. There are thousands upon thousands of white and Asian kids who grew up in poor and unstable homes, and thousands upon thousands of black and hispanic kids who were raised in the lap of luxury. It's completely unfair to effectively kick those kids in the teeth while they're already down by discriminating against them due to their race, all the while telling them how privileged they are compared to their BWM driving URM competition.

(I think this should be clear enough but this topic makes people so illogical that I'm going to go out of my way and state it loud and clear: I am NOT saying URMs are richer or advantaged compared to Asians and whites. I'm saying that in a large sample size, like a freakin' country, there is going to be a large number of overlaps between the distributions, and it is unfair to pretend that 5th percentile whites/Asians are somehow advantaged compared to 95th percentile URMs)

Well put. You both sound right

... But just my $0.02

 

[Womb Raider]

At what point will the races in America be able to compete as equals? When no one looks at another's facial features and considers them "inferior" due to their perceived race/ethnicity.

It's a sad reality. What's even worse is these systems perpetuate this kind of animosity by giving people reason to support their hate-filled judgments/intuitions and give credence to the poisonous mumblings of the old, bitter generation.

On the other hand we have unconscious biological biases that will never be eliminated completely... We are programmed to feel safe around those "like" us. We should not be surprised that person x treats person y differently when compared to another x. We all do this to some degree whether or not we realize or care to admit it.

I personally didn't wanna bring this up, but this is the huge idea I was leaning towards. It's the root of our problem as a whole. Whenever we realize that no one is better or worse than the next man or woman, we'll be much better off altogether.

Personally, I'd like to say let's not pretend that race/ethnicity and class isn't an issue both in and out of the academic scheme of things.

There will always be discrimination because people are different. You can't have differences without having inequality. Do you want everyone to be exactly equal? When (if) we get rid of racial discrimination (which likely won't happen until we're all the same mixed race) there will be other factors to discriminate on that will take the place of skin color. This whole idea of "oh we'll get rid of benefits when discrimination ends" is a ridiculous narrow-minded concept that is hindering the progression of human rights.

I've read that report from Salon as well. It was fascinating. It's amazing how much discrimination can be covert/unconscious.

Troubling article, I'd bet good money the trend has been steadily decreasing. I would like to see the next generation version of this study in a decade or two. It's convenient (and disgracefully common) how many people love to focus on the negatives rather than to show how much improvement we've made... Oh well, not surprised.

 

[ridethecliche]

Troubling article, I'd bet good money the trend has been steadily decreasing. I would like to see the next generation version of this study in a decade or two. It's convenient (and disgracefully common) how many people love to focus on the negatives rather than to show how much improvement we've made... Oh well, not surprised.

I'm sure that makes all the people that are affected by this feel oh so much better about their lives, right?

Progress is great and all, but saying it used to be worse doesn't make any less real the fact that the situation is pretty effed right now.

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm sure that makes all the people that are affected by this feel oh so much better about their lives, right?

Progress is great and all, but saying it used to be worse doesn't make any less real the fact that the situation is pretty effed right now.

It puts things in perspective. Literally NOTHING anyone or any government can do will eliminate these prejudices. These things take time. They disappear little by little, one generation at a time, until finally people stop hearing about them unless they read a history book. Yes it sucks. Yes it's not fair. But making systems that keep discrimination alive are counterproductive because they keep reminding everyone how real it really is. You think the solution to fixing inequality is by flipping the scale to "even things out," I think it's creating true equality and letting things balance out on their own.

My way doesn't give people a reason to hate each other.

 

[deleted577188]

It's a sad reality. What's even worse is these systems perpetuate this kind of animosity by giving people reason to support their hate-filled judgments/intuitions and give credence to the poisonous mumblings of the old, bitter generation.

On the other hand we have unconscious biological biases that will never be eliminated completely... We are programmed to feel safe around those "like" us. We should not be surprised that person x treats person y differently when compared to another x. We all do this to some degree whether or not we realize or care to admit it.



There will always be discrimination because people are different. You can't have differences without having inequality. Do you want everyone to be exactly equal? When (if) we get rid of racial discrimination (which likely won't happen until we're all the same mixed race) there will be other factors to discriminate on that will take the place of skin color. This whole idea of "oh we'll get rid of benefits when discrimination ends" is a ridiculous narrow-minded concept that is hindering the progression of human rights.




Troubling article, I'd bet good money the trend has been steadily decreasing. I would like to see the next generation version of this study in a decade or two. It's convenient (and disgracefully common) how many people love to focus on the negatives rather than to show how much improvement we've made... Oh well, not surprised.

The letters A and B are different. I don't think one is better than the other. Nearly every other inequality (race/ethnicity and class excluded) is as simple as A and B being different. The problem is black and white, not those other "unequal" factors. Sure, not every white person will be from Beverly Hills and not every black person will be from Compton, but even if they both were from the same place with relatively the same backgrounds, some people (certainly NOT many people I know) would still think white > black. It's a touchy subject.

I hope someone is able to make sense of what I'm trying to say 🙁

 

[godawg300]

It puts things in perspective. Literally NOTHING anyone or any government can do will eliminate these prejudices. These things take time. They disappear little by little, one generation at a time, until finally people stop hearing about them unless they read a history book. Yes it sucks. Yes it's not fair. But making systems that keep discrimination alive are counterproductive because they keep reminding everyone how real it really is. You think the solution to fixing inequality is by flipping the scale to "even things out," I think it's creating true equality and letting things balance out on their own.

My way doesn't give people a reason to hate each other.

Things don't balance themselves out on their own. They actually probably stay the same or get worse.

 

[ridethecliche]

It puts things in perspective. Literally NOTHING anyone or any government can do will eliminate these prejudices. These things take time. They disappear little by little, one generation at a time, until finally people stop hearing about them unless they read a history book. Yes it sucks. Yes it's not fair. But making systems that keep discrimination alive are counterproductive because they keep reminding everyone how real it really is. You think the solution to fixing inequality is by flipping the scale to "even things out," I think it's creating true equality and letting things balance out on their own.

My way doesn't give people a reason to hate each other.

I'm honestly not sure which of the two of us is more of an idealist if you truly believe that the system is self correcting.

 

[deleted577188]

I'm sure that makes all the people that are affected by this feel oh so much better about their lives, right?

Progress is great and all, but saying it used to be worse doesn't make any less real the fact that the situation is pretty effed right now.

It is so simple minded to think that just because it's been 60-100 years since the height of discrimination and major inequality that people should hang up on the fight for total equality. I certainly don't benefit from total equality as I stand currently, but I don't lose anything either. I don't understand people who think we've come far enough to throw in the towel now and be content with the current.

 

[ridethecliche]

It is so simple minded to think that just because it's been 60-100 years since the height of discrimination and major inequality that people should hang up on the fight for total equality. I certainly don't benefit from total equality as I stand currently, but I don't lose anything either. I don't understand people who think we've come far enough to throw in the towel now and be content with the current.

Who are these people ITT that you're referring to that are saying we should throw in the towel?

 

[deleted577188]

Who are these people ITT that you're referring to that are saying we should throw in the towel?

I was essentially agreeing with your post. I know people who think as a society we've come far enough to be content with how things are currently. This is not good.

 

[ridethecliche]

I was essentially agreeing with your post. I know people who think as a society we've come far enough to be content with how things are currently. This is not good.

Ahhh, okay.

 

[Womb Raider]

The letters A and B are different. I don't think one is better than the other. Nearly every other inequality (race/ethnicity and class excluded) is as simple as A and B being different. The problem is black and white, not those other "unequal" factors. Sure, not every white person will be from Beverly Hills and not every black person will be from Compton, but even if they both were from the same place with relatively the same backgrounds, some people (certainly NOT many people I know) would still think white > black. It's a touchy subject.

No inequality is as simple as A and B. I actually like A better for completely arbitrary reasons. If I had to pick one or the other I'd choose A every single time.

EVERYTHING matters depending on the context of the situation. You say no other inequalities matter? What about height? Intelligence? Hair color? Build (BMI)? Hand-eye coordination? Eye color? Size of certain body parts? Fertility? Metabolism? Accent? Personality? To think these are all "as simple as A and B" is just naive and flat out wrong.

Things don't balance themselves out on their own. They actually probably stay the same or get worse.

Things do balance out on their own given equal conditions. You treat people equally, eventually people will start believing it. You stop giving reasons for people to hate each other, eventually they'll be forced to stop hating each other.

I'm honestly not sure which of the two of us is more of an idealist if you truly believe that the system is self correcting.

Here are a few problems I have with "your way" of doing things:

1. Implementing a system that discriminates vs. certain individuals by giving advantages to others (because let's be honest, it's a zero-sum game) sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This is basically saying, "complain enough and you shall be rewarded." Of course there are going to be inequalities, there won't ever be a world devoid of inequalities. When does this stop? It's going to ping-pong back and forth since no "side" will ever be truly equal. This leads me to my second point...

2. Policy lags behind reality. It will be a constant struggle of implementing correct legislature (our politics are already bad enough) to "even things out." When will these boosts to certain races be removed? How will we determine that? If we wait (like Lizzy said) until people's facial features stop influencing biases, we'll be waiting forever...

3. Use SES instead of race. You want minorities to be treated fairly and respected as equals? Stop treating them unfairly and expecting equal treatment, it's a ridiculously mind-boggling simple concept. You think the opinion of Whites and Asians on URM med students aren't influenced by those graphs in the "What are my chances thread?" Give me a break. I've literally had URMs take pride (in person) in being accepted with their sub-27 MCAT scores, 0 EC or research experience and ghastly GPA while some of my white/asian friends are struggling to get in on their 3rd round with low/mid 30s+ MCATs and competitive ECs/GPAs.

I can't understand why you guys think it's OK to give some individuals an advantage based on something that is 100% involuntary. You're arguing against the very thing that started this problem in the first place.

 

[ridethecliche]

I never gave a way of doing anything. I merely said that saying that things used to be worse is a cop out of actually handling an issue.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth though...

 

[godawg300]

@Womb Raider, not sure if you are delusional or simply live in a homogeneous bubble.

"Things do balance out on their own given equal conditions. You treat people equally, eventually people will start believing it. You stop giving reasons for people to hate each other, eventually they'll be forced to stop hating each other."

Nope. Never has this ever been true in a diverse society.

1. Fixing over 250 years of slavery and barring people from education isn't fixed overnight.
2. What do you propose?
3. Just because someone is URM but not low SES doesn't mean he hasn't any easier. Just look at the Henry Gates case in 2009.

"I can't understand why you guys think it's OK to give some individuals an advantage based on something that is 100% involuntary. You're arguing against the very thing that started this problem in the first place."

So your solution is just to say, forget about the history and lets start everyone on an equal playing field? Forgetting that up until 1972, the medical community allowed experiments like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment to go on. How fair is that? I can tell you don't have much experience with other cultures.

 

[Womb Raider]

1. Fixing over 250 years of slavery and barring people from education isn't fixed overnight. Who said anything about barring?
2. What do you propose? I think my stance has been pretty clear...
3. Just because someone is URM but not low SES doesn't mean he hasn't any easier. Just look at the Henry Gates case in 2009. Just because someone is white doesn't mean they have it any easier in every situation. I've been in plenty of situations where I'm a subordinate to a URM boss. The same sorts of biases apply in the reverse scenarios.

So your solution is just to say, forget about the history and lets start everyone on an equal playing field? Forgetting that up until 1972, the medical community allowed experiments like the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment to go on. How fair is that? I can tell you don't have much experience with other cultures.

I've been studying medical ethics for a while now (and worked in clinical research for over a year). I think you're either completely ignorant of how strict current healthcare policy (and research protocol) actually is or you're just trying to make a point and hoping I don't know any better. We've made MASSIVE progress in this area. Bioethics was pretty much non-existent when this study started, and the autonomy-based model of medicine is a relatively recent accomplishment.

Furthermore, the entire medical community didn't endorse the atrocities of Tuskegee. I bet it was actually relatively secretive seeing as how long it went on before the press found out. Don't paint the picture like the entire medical community was on board with this.

 

[ridethecliche]

You realize that Tuskegee wasn't that long ago right? And it was well after nuremberg.

Again, the progress since then doesn't take away that something like this happened so recently. Those patients were poor and black and were still thought of as subhuman. There was a known cure for the illness at that time.

What are you justifying exactly? That things are improving? No one is disagreeing with that, but your stated reason that it's happen on its own is really bizarre.

 

[godawg300]

I think you are trying to somehow say that enough progress has been made and we should just forget? Or are you trying to tell people to just move on with it? I never said the entire medical community endorsed that experiment. My whole point was to show you that not too long ago, poor blacks were treated like animals by physicians. It's so easy to say we have made so much progress when people are still alive and remember being treated like subhuman.

 

[Womb Raider]

I definitely don't think we should forget it. If anything, we need to remember these things and be mindful of the importance of treating all people as equal human beings.

Does that mean some populations will be more skeptical of physicians for a while? Yes.
Does that mean physicians may have to spend more time explaining / gaining the trust of these populations? Yes.
Does that mean we should be conscience of these justified fears and prejudices while evaluating and treating certain populations? Yes.
Does a history of treating one population bad justify treating an entirely new unrelated population bad to make up for the past? No.

We are equals in the eyes of the law. This is huge progress.

But when medical schools start discriminating based on race, this also makes me worry about the precedent it is setting. Why don't we make schools have a certain % of URM teachers so that URM kids can be taught by URM teachers, with whom they connect with and learn from more effectively? Why don't restaurants do this? What about neighborhoods? You can go on and on and on. Don't you see that we're moving in the opposite direction? We're actively endorsing (or let me rephrase that, YOU are actively endorsing) a policy that discriminates based on skin color in 2015. Give yourself a big ol' pat on the back for me.

...

 

[ridethecliche]

We are equals in the eyes of the law. This is huge progress.

You sure about that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-calls-on-ferguson-to-overhaul-criminal-justice-system.html

The Justice Department on Wednesday called on Ferguson, Mo., to overhaul its criminal justice system, declaring that the city had engaged in so many constitutional violations that they could be corrected only by abandoning its entire approach to policing, retraining its employees and establishing new oversight.

In one example after another, the report described a city that used its police and courts as moneymaking ventures, a place where officers stopped and handcuffed people without probable cause, hurled racial slurs, usedstun guns without provocation, and treated anyone as suspicious merely for questioning police tactics.

Care to guess which race was the most highly targeted even though the stats didn't support it?

As for the rest of your post:
so basically you consider affirmative action 'reverse discrimination'.... okay then.

And now this thread becomes like every other race/urm thread on SDN. Great.

 

[drmak89]

I definitely don't think we should forget it. If anything, we need to remember these things and be mindful of the importance of treating all people as equal human beings.

Does that mean some populations will be more skeptical of physicians for a while? Yes.
Does that mean physicians may have to spend more time explaining / gaining the trust of these populations? Yes.
Does that mean we should be conscience of these justified fears and prejudices while evaluating and treating certain populations? Yes.
Does a history of treating one population bad justify treating an entirely new unrelated population bad to make up for the past? No.

We are equals in the eyes of the law. This is huge progress.

...

Unfortunately, we are not. LizzyM referenced an article in Salon. Please see points 3, 4, 5, 6, 8. Hell see the whole damn list.

"I've been in plenty of situations where I'm a subordinate to a URM boss. The same sorts of biases apply in the reverse scenarios."

Once again, this is about systematic discrimination, not simply individual bias.

 

[Womb Raider]

I said equal in the eyes of the law. Does the law always work perfectly in a practical scenario? Obviously not, no justice system is perfect and is influenced by the individuals that enforce it.

Sigh, I've made my point so many times I'm becoming redundant. It's clear you guys won't agree with me, so I'm going to go ahead and stop arguing and start drinking.

 

[Womb Raider]

so basically you consider affirmative action 'reverse discrimination'.... okay then.

Do you?

 

[deleted577188]

I definitely don't think we should forget it. If anything, we need to remember these things and be mindful of the importance of treating all people as equal human beings.

Does that mean some populations will be more skeptical of physicians for a while? Yes.
Does that mean physicians may have to spend more time explaining / gaining the trust of these populations? Yes.
Does that mean we should be conscience of these justified fears and prejudices while evaluating and treating certain populations? Yes.
Does a history of treating one population bad justify treating an entirely new unrelated population bad to make up for the past? No.

We are equals in the eyes of the law. This is huge progress.

But when medical schools start discriminating based on race, this also makes me worry about the precedent it is setting. Why don't we make schools have a certain % of URM teachers so that URM kids can be taught by URM teachers, with whom they connect with and learn from more effectively? Why don't restaurants do this? What about neighborhoods? You can go on and on and on. Don't you see that we're moving in the opposite direction? We're actively endorsing (or let me rephrase that, YOU are actively endorsing) a policy that discriminates based on skin color in 2015. Give yourself a big ol' pat on the back for me.

...

We are not all equals in the eyes of the LAW. The law is a blind eye.

 

[LizzyM]

But when medical schools start discriminating based on race, this also makes me worry about the precedent it is setting.

...

Many medical schools did discriminate based on race meaning they prohibited the admission of black applicants. This was still happening as recently as the early 1960s.

I know of no medical school that rejects applicants based on their race in 2015. Tell me if you know of one school that does not admit, as a matter of policy, any Asian applicants, any White applicants, any
Black applicants, or any Hispanic applicants.

 

[Womb Raider]

I know of no medical school that rejects applicants based on their race in 2015. Tell me if you know of one school that does not admit, as a matter of policy, any Asian applicants, any White applicants, any Black applicants, or any Hispanic applicants.

I thought we've already accepted the claim that URMs are given boost in admissions compared with Whites and Asians, which is of course justified by those who support it on the idea that those populations are more likely to go be doctors for other URMs. It's extremely difficult to deny this fact and I thought this was well accepted as common knowledge in the SDN community.

But, in case other members haven't heard these arguments I will try to reproduce them.

Med schools accept URMs with lower qualifications (e.g. MCAT scores, GPA) than other races (ORMs) based on the fact that their skin color is different. This is justified by the fact that URMs are more likely (not guaranteed!) to go on and serve other URM communities when they start practicing. This is important, because many minorities prefer to have minority physicians for obvious reasons, which ultimately result in better patient care. The whole goal is to make more URM physicians so that URM patients can go see other URMs. Again, I ask why we don't do this in other similar areas in life that have obvious/predictable benefits, e.g. teaching in school. Why don't we allow everyone the choice of seeing identical-colored individuals in situations? Why, when you start looking at it like this, is it all of the sudden considered racist?

Then when we start talking about the MASSIVE differences between matriculate GPA and MCAT scores, you try to rationalize again. You say:

1. Grades and GPA are only part of a good application. We take into consideration other relevant aspects (e.g. leadership, diligence, EC's, shadowing experience, etc...).

This is insufficient in explaining the huge GPA/MCAT discrepancies between URMs and ORMs that are evident in the graphs. There's no way URMs as a whole have THAT MUCH BETTER applications (excluding GPA/MCAT) than everyone else, throughout the whole country. The difference comes from elsewhere, *cough* skin color.

2. There are diminishing returns regarding GPA/MCAT. That is, beyond a certain point it really doesn't matter. The criteria are used to predict whether or not you will be able to handle the rigorousness of the coursework in medical school. Anything past a x GPA and x MCAT proves you have the necessary intellectual skills to succeed. Not surprisingly the bar is set pretty low (much lower than the average White/Asian matriculate). I have a few points:

a) If this is the case, why don't we use a pass/fail system? What's the point of showing that your MCAT score is above the minimum requirement? It's a cop-out.
b) Certainly higher MCAT/GPA is correlated with a higher chance to graduate medical school. I know the difference would be slight, but I'm sure it's there.
____
Bottom line: If we were to hypothetically replace every applicant's name with an ID #, remove gender and race, and somehow conduct a blind interview (e.g. skype with no video), you'd see VASTLY different med school demographics.

Why is it O.K. to pick and choose by color in med school but not anywhere else?

 

[LizzyM]

Life experience counts. Diversity within the medical school class is desirable. The same desire for diversity is practiced in undergraduate admissions, private K-12 admission, some selective enrollment public schools, and in hiring decisions in some industries and government appointments (including judicial appointments at the highest level).

If we turned away every black, Hispanic and Native American applicant, every one of them, and any mixed race applicant who identified as URM, we would fill ~20436 seats from a pool of 38713 applicants. If we halted all URM admissions there would still be over 18,000 ORM applicants who would not be admitted to medical school each year. And there would be no black physicians graduating from any school (even the historically black schools), no Hispanic physicians even from the medical schools on Puerto Rico and in the border states with Mexico, and their would be no Native American graduates of medical schools going forward.

Would America be better served, and would you be better served as fellow students, if there were no URM in medical school? Consider that even if we were to throw all the URM applicants under the bus, the chances of any given ORM applicant to get into med school would still be < 60%.

Is that the America you want?

Even with an application that was scrubbed of name, gender, and with an interview behind a curtain (which would be a terrible idea, btw) we could still infer ethnicity in many instances by languages spoken, address,and extracurricular activities (life experience).

About 1.4% of students flunk out of med school (are dismissed for academic reasons). Even among those with a 27-29 and 3.4-3.59 the proportion dismissed for academics is only 1.5%. Within that same GPA, those with MCAT scores at 39-45 flunk out at a rate of 1.2%. Are we really better off choosing only those with the highest MCAT over anything else they might bring to the classroom, lab, and clinic?

 

[miamiheatfan]

Life experience counts. Diversity within the medical school class is desirable. The same desire for diversity is practiced in undergraduate admissions, private K-12 admission, some selective enrollment public schools, and in hiring decisions in some industries and government appointments (including judicial appointments at the highest level).

If we turned away every black, Hispanic and Native American applicant, every one of them, and any mixed race applicant who identified as URM, we would fill ~20436 seats from a pool of 38713 applicants. If we halted all URM admissions there would still be over 18,000 ORM applicants who would not be admitted to medical school each year. And there would be no black physicians graduating from any school (even the historically black schools), no Hispanic physicians even from the medical schools on Puerto Rico and in the border states with Mexico, and their would be no Native American graduates of medical schools going forward.

Would America be better served, and would you be better served as fellow students, if there were no URM in medical school? Consider that even if we were to throw all the URM applicants under the bus, the chances of any given ORM applicant to get into med school would still be < 60%.

Is that the America you want?

Even with an application that was scrubbed of name, gender, and with an interview behind a curtain (which would be a terrible idea, btw) we could still infer ethnicity in many instances by languages spoken, address,and extracurricular activities (life experience).

About 1.4% of students flunk out of med school (are dismissed for academic reasons). Even among those with a 27-29 and 3.4-3.59 the proportion dismissed for academics is only 1.5%. Within that same GPA, those with MCAT scores at 39-45 flunk out at a rate of 1.2%. Are we really better off choosing only those with the highest MCAT over anything else they might bring to the classroom, lab, and clinic?

THIS needs to be stickied somewhere.

 

[Raryn]

To be honest, I'm still of the opinion the "URM" question is almost entirely a pipeline problem. Medical schools do what they can to get a diverse class, for a variety of reasons, but because of the various disadvantages compounded over decades, there just aren't a proportional amount of minority candidates applying with the appropriate credentials. This is not because they are incapable, but because of discouragement and lack of mentorship at various stages well before the medical school application process. Affirmative action as currently applied is a band-aid at best, and giving more and more leeway to try to get minority candidates into medical schools as is will never be a solution.

What gets people annoyed is that that band-aid just doesn't seem... fair. Caucasian Applicant A had nothing to do with the *potential* lack of mentorship applicant Hispanic Applicant B had 10 years ago and may have even also not had any opportunities, why should he not be given leeway as well? Ethnicity is a poor proxy for what the real problem is because while it is really easy to see on a population basis which ethnicities are disadvantaged, it's really difficult to tell on a person-by-person basis. Hell, 75% of the black individuals at my medical school were 1st or 2nd generation Africans, not AAs, most of whom had parents with tertiary education and as many opportunities as those parents could get them.

That said, I'm probably less adamant against affirmative action than I used to be. I'd still say that economic concerns (i.e. the "disadvantaged" question) should be the bigger focus, but it wouldn't do enough to fix the ethnicity problem, so the little extra help they get currently is probably (at least for now) needed. What needs to happen more is outreach to high schools, colleges, or earlier, try to build things up from there, but that would take a culture shift that isn't happening anytime soon.

 

[LizzyM]

Hell, 75% of the black individuals at my medical school were 1st or 2nd generation Africans, not AAs, most of whom had parents with tertiary education and as many opportunities as those parents could get them.

Being an African immigrant is not all rainbows and butterflies. Granted it is a novel but I found Americanah by the Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichied to be very illuminating. One of the characters is a female physician and single mom who comes to the US, eventually passes the ECFME exam and eventually practices medicine in the US. It is not a smooth path and her child's life experience is not what one would expect from a "doctor's kid". Read it and open your eyes to race in America particularly to the view of a non-American black in America.

 

[ridethecliche]

Sometimes I wonder why we still bother repeating ourselves over and over and over and over again.

Part of me still wants to believe that someone somewhere is reading and actually understanding or giving a crap and will maybe finally one day understand that you can't undo over decades and decades of racial terrorism and purposeful discrimination (and institutional racism) by puffing our chest up and saying that these inequalities have ceased to exist because the law is written that way.

What is written and what is done is open to so much interpretation and judgement call that it's almost laughable. I almost wonder if many of the people that constantly claim that there are no real issues anymore have ever spent a day with a black peer in a big city like NYC or spoken to a friend of color about their experience growing up black/hispanic in an area like that. It's a helluva eye opener.

@LizzyM interesting that you bring up Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I love her work. As an 'Asian' immigrant to the US, I've read a few things regarding things like police treatment of non-english speaking asians that was incredibly frightening (two reports of old men beaten by cops stands out in my mind: one chinese and one indian). Talking about African and African American treatment is just another level of hell, frankly.

It's amazing to me how so many white people (and applicants) just don't grasp how much of an issue people of color face in this country face on a daily basis. Saying something like 'the law is equal' doesn't really help anyone when things are playing out very differently on the ground. I mean an ostrich burying its head on the ground doesn't really make the problem go away...

 

[Goro]

A start will be when the Ferguson, MO police and city stop treating the residents as if they're on a plantation.

A start will be when a policeman in MO won't point at the president of the US, a Harvard grad and former constitutional law professor, as a black who won't be able to hold a job.

To follow up on my learned colleagues comments, URMs don't get apas because they were treated poorly in the past, it's because they're URM. Period.

It's not discrimination to say that we want a pool of doctors that mirrors the US population. Not Vermont's. Not Missouri's. Not Birmingham, AL's. But the USA.

At what point will the races in America be able to compete as equals? When no one looks at another's facial features and considers them "inferior" due to their perceived race/ethnicity.

 

[Womb Raider]

Another way of looking at this issue.

The affirmative action type admissions are basically saying one person becoming a doctor (URM) will be more beneficial than another person becoming a doctor (ORM). This is a utilitarian argument. You are harming a few to benefit many.

Interestingly, utilitarian-based justifications are often intuitively disliked. Here's a common hypothetical example: There are 3 people with successful, meaningful careers and families who will die immediately if they don't get new organs from a donor. A homeless guy with no family or friends, no education and will probably die soon. Why not kill the homeless man to save the lives of the 3 people? Almost everyone agrees that it is morally wrong to kill the homeless man to save the other 3 lives. We think this way because we believe all humans are considered equal and should be treated as an end in themselves, rather than as a means to an end.

You all cite the notorious Tuskegee syphilis case and Henrietta Lacks, as if it is somehow they help justify discrimination today. Utilitarianism reasoning was used to justify those (and many others) situations. Even if the end result did end up doing "more good than harm" (whatever that means), we still, as a majority, refuse to accept that those horrendous actions were justified.

You may say, well wait a minute, that's different because you were infringing on their rights as a human being! Med school admissions are different - no one has a "right" or should feel entitled to going to med school! No, you're absolutely right, no one has a right to go to medical school. But we do have a right to be treated as equals and not discriminated based on color. Civil rights act 1964 "...outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Matching the medical school class demographics to American demographics (or ANY demographics) is, by definition, discriminating based on these things.

I'm not saying that I know, for a fact, that the way we're doing things is wrong - no one does. But I don't support the rationale behind the way medical schools are currently working, as I think it is really fueled by BS reasoning from myopic power-hungry politicians or individuals who only have their own interests at heart.

For those of you that support this, all I am looking for is a conscious acknowledgement that you are willingly and in good-faith supporting discrimination based on color using utilitarian reasoning. "As long as we're helping people in healthcare it's O.K. to discriminate, but everywhere else, NO NO NO!!"

 

[touchpause13]

Another way of looking at this issue.

The affirmative action type admissions are basically saying one person becoming a doctor (URM) will be more beneficial than another person becoming a doctor (ORM). This is a utilitarian argument. You are harming a few to benefit many.

Interestingly, utilitarian-based justifications are often intuitively disliked. Here's a common hypothetical example: There are 3 people with successful, meaningful careers and families who will die immediately if they don't get new organs from a donor. A homeless guy with no family or friends, no education and will probably die soon. Why not kill the homeless man to save the lives of the 3 people? Almost everyone agrees that it is morally wrong to kill the homeless man to save the other 3 lives. We think this way because we believe all humans are considered equal and should be treated as an end in themselves, rather than as a means to an end.

You all cite the notorious Tuskegee syphilis case and Henrietta Lacks, as if it is somehow they help justify discrimination today. Utilitarianism reasoning was used to justify those (and many others) situations. Even if the end result did end up doing "more good than harm" (whatever that means), we still, as a majority, refuse to accept that those horrendous actions were justified.

You may say, well wait a minute, that's different because you were infringing on their rights as a human being! Med school admissions are different - no one has a "right" or should feel entitled to going to med school! No, you're absolutely right, no one has a right to go to medical school. But we do have a right to be treated as equals and not discriminated based on color. Civil rights act 1964 "...outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Matching the medical school class demographics to American demographics (or ANY demographics) is, by definition, discriminating based on these things.

I'm not saying that I know, for a fact, that the way we're doing things is wrong - no one does. But I don't support the rationale behind the way medical schools are currently working, as I think it is really fueled by BS reasoning from myopic power-hungry politicians or individuals who only have their own interests at heart.

For those of you that support this, all I am looking for is a conscious acknowledgement that you are willingly and in good-faith supporting discrimination based on color using utilitarian reasoning. "As long as we're helping people in healthcare it's O.K. to discriminate, but everywhere else, NO NO NO!!"

Someone would make a better medical student than another person for thousands of different reasons. Maybe they have military training, maybe they have proven their desire to practice in a rural location or with an undeserved group, maybe they grew up on a rez, maybe they got kicked out of their home as a teen, maybe they had cancer, maybe they are extremely personable. It's not about harming a few, it's about the fact that adcoms get an insane number of applicants with grades/MCAT scores that show they are capable of succeeding in medical school. How are you going to chose from them? Just picking the highest grades is, IMO, stupid because that isn't really representative of who will make the best doctor to serve the community (and who the community is varies by school). So instead they start to look at life experiences, and because race happens to be one of the things you can see and is measured, pre-meds latch on to it like this is "discrimination" It's not. It's looking at the applicant as a person and using their life experiences to make a call about whether or not this person would be a good fit for their school and if they could see them as a physician.
When people bring up the horrific ways that the black community has been treated (and really continues to be treated) it's not because they want to "give blacks more spots in order to make up for bad stuff in the past" it's recognizing that this population has very legitimate reasons to fear the medical community and that having more physicians of color will help those people get the best care possible. Of course that shouldn't be the only thing med schools do in order to serve the black community - everyone should be knowledgeable about the injustices that physicians have participated in because our patients are and we should be able to address their concerns.

 

[drmak89]

Someone make a better medical student than another person for thousands of different reasons. Maybe they have military training, maybe they have proven their desire to practice in a rural location or with an undeserved group, maybe they grew up on a rez, maybe they got kicked out of their home as a teen, maybe they had cancer, maybe they are extremely personable. It's not about harming a few, it's about the fact that adcoms get an insane number of applicants with grades/MCAT scores that show they are capable of succeeding in medical school. How are you going to chose from them? Just picking the highest grades is, IMO, stupid because that isn't really representative of who will make the best doctor to serve the community (and who the community is varies by school). So instead they start to look at life experiences, and because race happens to be one of the things you can see and is measured, pre-meds latch on to it like this is "discrimination" It's not. It's looking at the applicant as a person and using their life experiences to make a call about whether or not this person would be a good fit for their school and if they could see them as a physician.
When people bring up the horrific ways that the black community has been treated (and really continues to be treated) it's not because they want to "give blacks more spots in order to make up for bad stuff in the past" it's recognizing that this population has very legitimate reasons to fear the medical community and that having more physicians of color will help those people get the best care possible. Of course that shouldn't be the only thing med schools do in order to serve the black community - everyone should be knowledgeable about the injustices that physicians have participated in because our patients are and we should be able to address their concerns.

This! Race has an overwhelmingly large impact on life experiences and outcomes (both good and bad).

This whole post needs to be made a sticky !

 

[Goro]

To add, we don't reject people because of race. We don't accept due to race either. We accept on the basis of what the applicant will add to the Class and the school. It's not about what the applicants wants, but what the school wants.

And again, this is a meritocratic process. Merit is not always defined by MCAT and GPA alone. The road travelled can be just as important. We want people who will make good students AND good doctors. Too many applicants will make good students only.

Many medical schools did discriminate based on race meaning they prohibited the admission of black applicants. This was still happening as recently as the early 1960s.

I know of no medical school that rejects applicants based on their race in 2015. Tell me if you know of one school that does not admit, as a matter of policy, any Asian applicants, any White applicants, any
Black applicants, or any Hispanic applicants.

 

[Womb Raider]

Someone make a better medical student than another person for thousands of different reasons. Maybe they have military training, maybe they have proven their desire to practice in a rural location or with an undeserved group, maybe they grew up on a rez, maybe they got kicked out of their home as a teen, maybe they had cancer, maybe they are extremely personable. It's not about harming a few, it's about the fact that adcoms get an insane number of applicants with grades/MCAT scores that show they are capable of succeeding in medical school. How are you going to chose from them? Just picking the highest grades is, IMO, stupid because that isn't really representative of who will make the best doctor to serve the community (and who the community is varies by school). So instead they start to look at life experiences, and because race happens to be one of the things you can see and is measured, pre-meds latch on to it like this is "discrimination" It's not. It's looking at the applicant as a person and using their life experiences to make a call about whether or not this person would be a good fit for their school and if they could see them as a physician.
When people bring up the horrific ways that the black community has been treated (and really continues to be treated) it's not because they want to "give blacks more spots in order to make up for bad stuff in the past" it's recognizing that this population has very legitimate reasons to fear the medical community and that having more physicians of color will help those people get the best care possible. Of course that shouldn't be the only thing med schools do in order to serve the black community - everyone should be knowledgeable about the injustices that physicians have participated in because our patients are and we should be able to address their concerns.

I understand there is more to med school applications than simply GPA and MCAT. What concerns me - for the 100th time - is people putting value on something that is completely out of someone's control (i.e. race, skin color).

I realize you (not personal, directed toward everyone that shares your sentiments) think that there is value in living the life of a minority. This is something I personally agree with; there is value in the life of every individual in this country. But this is just a clever way of trying to bypass explicitly saying that you are discriminating based on color. You can't say URM lives are more meaningful than White and Asian lives, which is exactly what you're doing and is clearly supported by the data. It's incredible to me that you people seriously have been brainwashed, or keep telling yourselves that what you're doing isn't discrimination - IT IS. Try to rationalize it all you want, it's discriminating.

You're justifying discrimination based on the premise that it's for a good cause. News flash - there is no cause that merits discrimination.

Just admit what I asked earlier and I'll stop arguing.

 

[touchpause13]

I understand there is more to med school applications than simply GPA and MCAT. What concerns me - for the 100th time - is people putting value on something that is completely out of someone's control (i.e. race, skin color).

I realize you (not personal, directed toward everyone that shares your sentiments) think that there is value in living the life of a minority. This is something I personally agree with; there is value in the life of every individual in this country. But this is just a clever way of trying to bypass explicitly saying that you are discriminating based on color. You can't say URM lives are more meaningful than White and Asian lives, which is exactly what you're doing and is clearly supported by the data. It's incredible to me that you people seriously have been brainwashed, or keep telling yourselves that what you're doing isn't discrimination - IT IS. Try to rationalize it all you want, it's discriminating.

You're justifying discrimination based on the premise that it's for a good cause. News flash - there is no cause that merits discrimination.

Just admit what I asked earlier and I'll stop arguing.

I'm not saying that URM lives are more meaningful than white or Asian lives. I'm saying that every part of an applicant is and should be taken into consideration when trying to determine if they will make a good physician. That's not discrimination, that's looking at an applicant holistically.

And no, I'm not going to "admit" something that I don't agree with.

 

[touchpause13]

I don't understand why it matters to you that @Womb Raider that race is inherent. If one applicant was born in a family that was multilingual and grew up speaking both fluent French and English is that not something that should be taken into consideration? Don't they also bring something to the table that is merely the result of their family heritage?

 

[Womb Raider]

I'm not saying that URM lives are more meaningful than white or Asian lives. I'm saying that every part of an applicant is and should be taken into consideration when trying to determine if they will make a good physician. That's not discrimination, that's looking at an applicant holistically.

So URMs just magically have MUCH better applications outside of GPA/MCAT? They must, because their GPA/MCAT stats are abysmal compared to ORMs. I find it very hard to believe that these individuals have stronger applications using criteria that is comparable with all races. The difference comes because they're a URM, as has been stated by the adcoms time and time again.

You're including skin color/race in that "holistic" view of yours.

I don't understand why it matters to you that @Womb Raider that race is inherent. If one applicant was born in a family that was multilingual and grew up speaking both fluent French and English is that not something that should be taken into consideration? Don't they also bring something to the table that is merely the result of their family heritage?

Sure it should be taken into consideration. Race is different because it stereotypes entire populations of people based on no guaranteed benefit, and you know, it's something we've been fighting for a long time. Factoring SES is also questionable, but it's something I (and many others) agree would be a worthy consideration and justify discrimination.

 

[ridethecliche]

What if someone was born rich or poor? People have no more control of their SES at birth than they have of their race.

You said you were fine with that though.

 

[touchpause13]

So URMs just magically have MUCH better applications outside of GPA/MCAT? They must, because their GPA/MCAT stats are abysmal compared to ORMs. I find it very hard to believe that these individuals have stronger applications using criteria that is comparable with all races. The difference comes because they're a URM, as has been stated by the adcoms time and time again.

You're including skin color/race in that "holistic" view of yours.



Sure it should be taken into consideration. Race is different because it stereotypes entire populations of people based on no guaranteed benefit. Factoring SES is also questionable, but it's something I (and many others) agree would be a worthy consideration and justify discrimination.

I don't know how you are getting this idea that it is stereotyping. It's not like adcoms see an application of a URM and say let that dude in, he's black so he must be great. URM applicants go through the same process as everyone else, perhaps with some added scrutiny in order to see how much they actually give a damn about the community they are a part of.
Yes race is part of a holistic view of a person, obviously.

 

[touchpause13]

What if someone was born rich or poor? People have no more control of their SES at birth than they have of their race.

You said you were fine with that though.

b-b-b-but that's not the same!

 

[touchpause13]

- there is no cause that merits discrimination.

Factoring SES is also questionable, but it's something I (and many others) agree would be a worthy consideration and justify discrimination.

You're contradicting yourself. Try again.

 

[Womb Raider]

Yes race is part of a holistic view of a person, obviously.

So you're O.K. with assigning "values" corresponding to race. Some races are worth more than others, which is what is happening now. Thanks, that's basically admitting what I asked for earlier. (If all races are equal, why would they need to be considered in the application?)

As for everything else, the answers to these questions have already been stated. I'm going to stop posting until someone presents an idea actually worth discussing.

You're contradicting yourself. Try again.

Hmm yes, sorry, should've been more clear. I was trying to say "There is no cause that merits discrimination based on color..."

 

[touchpause13]

So you're O.K. with assigning "values" corresponding to race. Some races are worth more than others, which is what is happening now. Thanks, that's basically admitting what I asked for earlier.

As for everything else, the answers to these questions have already been stated. I'm going to stop posting until someone presents an idea actually worth discussing.

Re-read what I said and try again.

 

[touchpause13]

If you want to get better at this you need to have a consistent argument, and not misrepresent what the other person is saying. I respect your enthusiasm, but you overstepped pretty hard. I would suggest staying away from absolutes because they are very easy to refute and it's easy to walk right into them, as you clearly did.
It's also better to refute the direct quotes from the other person instead of trying to summarize what they are saying or extrapolate from their words, because a lot of times you end up embellishing and creating a straw man.
And of course insulting the other person's intelligence is pretty much guaranteed to make you look bad.

 

[Womb Raider]

You guys have been conveniently side-stepping the difficult questions I've been presenting for this entire thread. You opt to attack the minutiae of my posts rather than defend your own position. Start answering some of the harder questions and I'll spend more time arguing. Until then, I'm going to take a break because I think your position is indefensible without accepting the reality that you're discriminating based on race.

 

[touchpause13]

I'll make it even easier for you - the crux of my argument is that URM policies look at the applicant holistically, and because there are many factors at pay here besides race that it can't be considered discrimination. If you want to refute that you have to prove that URM policies meet the definition of discrimination. Just saying that discrimination is wrong, or that some discrimination is wrong but others aren't doesn't refute my argument and it just leaves you chasing your own tail. Instead of getting forcing me to be on the defensive, you've spent most of this time throwing out flack that I can easily refute. My argument is actually way more difficult to try and prove than yours, but you've failed to use that to your advantage.