Racists medical schools??

[exigente chica]

Diogenes, you never cease to amaze me with your open-mind and great replies

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[relatively prime]

Well... the fact that most medical schools claim to not make decisions based on "race, gender, naitonality, etc..." when they actually do does kind of piss me off... but only because it's very dishonest.

But really, if you're a strong applicant you don't have anything to worry about....

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
they're only hypocritical if they say discrimination is bad and then do it. If they claim they don't discriminate and then do, thats just dishonest, not hypocritical....

I guess I think they're applicant pool would lead to those demographics regardless. Even if they do discriminate I don't necessarily think it's not appropriate given the schools stated mission. And if they have to say "we don't" to avoid a frivolous lawsuit...well that's just the scoiety we live in. Myself, I feel more irritated with law suits which make it difficult for schools to be honest about their admissions policies. That's part of the reason schools won't publish their numbers cut-offs due to past law suits over it. I'de rather know, just so I know who is worth paying AMCAS the $30 for and who isn't....

Technically you are right about dishonesty vs hypocricy. You can make a good argument that its necessary to discriminate because otherwise diversity would suffer. I agree that you could make a case for that. What I'm saying is that its not right to be double-tongued about this and do one thing behind closed doors yet proclaim another thing in public. Thats exactly what 95% of all med schools do.

If you're going to discriminate, be honest about it. Explain why you are doing it and why its needed. But dont sell me this load of crap about how you practice equal opportunity but yet have affirmative action policies. Thats a complete and total lie.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by CANES2006
Why are you only targeting those schools? We can also call many top schools racist based on the fact that they have so few Hispanics (I'm just picking this race as an example) as students compared to the proportion of the population that Hispanics make up. I am so tired of hearing people complain about affirmative action (by the way, I am not a URM who might "benefit" from affirmative action) and labeling schools that have an overabundance of minorities as racist. How about the discrimination against minorities that goes on in MANY schools? I can tell you one thing, racial discrimination takes place alot more often than reverse discrimination does, yet many minorities don't whine half as much as you guys are doing. Please try another perspective. I don't agree with many facets of affirmative action, but I agree even less with discrimination based solely on race or ethnicity. Yeah, affirmative action isn't always fair, but you guys are not the only victims.

I'm not referring to only the historically black med schools, I'm lumping them all together since 95% of them use race-based preferences in admissions. That is, all things being equal, they favor applicants of certain races. By definition, thats discriminatory. Just because its not an outright ban on majority races does NOT mean that its not discriminatory. Racial discrimination occurs when race is used to ANY degree in admissions.

Evidence of discrimination is based not on outcomes, but process. For example, I could say the NBA is discriminatory (using your logic) because 80% of all players are black. I would be wrong in that assertion, however, because the process itself by which NBA players are chosen does not favor black athletes. As a white person, if my athletic talent were equal or better than a black athlete, then I would be just as likely to be chosen. So you cant just look at outcomes and say thats evidence of racial discrimination, you have to analyze the process.

Again, I think you can make a good argument that affirmative action is necessary, given that historically certain minority groups have been discriminated against in society. However, you can not state that you are both an equal opportunity/affirmative action university (like UMiami does). Those two things dont go together.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by KKay999
First of all schools like Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse were created to give minorities an opportunity of a medical education because the opportunities weren't as abundant for them at other medical schools around the country. If you argue that it is discrimination because these predominantly minority schools accept predominantly minority applicants, you can also argue that it's discrimination because predominantly caucasian schools accept predominantly caucasian applicants. We can go back and forth forever with this!!

No, you cant argue that its discrimination based solely on outcomes. Discrimination is a process, not an outcome.

The bottom line is that we all need to get off this race/discrimination/affirmitive action issue. Why can't some people just realize that there are a LIMITED number of spots available for 10's of thousands of applicants, thousands who are indeed qualified. Meaning sombody is going to get left out. Stop blaming it on race!

You're right, somebody is going to get left out. But how can you not blame race to some degree when its a factor in the admissions process? Race is responsible for relatively few people getting shunned, but that doesnt mean its the right way to deal with things. Thats like saying, "well only a few African American votes were thrown out in Florida, so everything is OK"

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Tweetie_bird
hmm, not sure if I agree with this. Think of Affirmative Action as something that helps level the playing field, thus giving an Equal Opportunity to those that didn't have the right resources (socioeonomic status which eventually affects school performance etc) to excel in education.

thats why AMCAS has a "disadvantaged" section on the app. But med schools still consider race in spite of this section. If equal opportunity is defined in those terms, thats still misleading because at the med school admissions level, there is NOT equal opportunity. Anyways, I think its incredibly naive and dubious for an institution to imply that racial discrimination at the med school admissions stage corrects past racial discrimination and therefore results in equal opportunity.

Think of an underprivileged person who comes from the ghetto (is that word even politically correct?) Anyway, if they come from a poor SE background, they most likely would not have attended the best high school (trust me, I've seen really REALLY bad ones) and that eventually feeds itself into a not-so-good college edcuation. Combine that with having to work for money 24/7 because your family couldn't afford it. Your high school career wasn't the best so it's not like you can get **that** many scholarships either.

Again, people that fit the description you described have ample space under the "disadvantaged" section. Everything you describe does not take race into consideration (as it should not). So you dont need AA to correct for socio-economic conditions. AA in the medical school scheme is designed specifically to promote under-represented minorities, regardless of socio-economic condition.

What AA does is. . sort of like a normalizer. It takes the range of ALL underprivileged people applying, and takes the best from that category.

AA has nothing to do with socio-economic background and everything to do with race/gender.

It's not discrimination--they are still in competition with the rest of the pool.

It IS discrimination if they factor race/gender to any degree in admissions.

It's just that due to different reasons and more detailed above, the average stats of the pool seem to be smaller which **makes it seem** like it's easier for them to get into med school. It's not as easy for them as we think.

It doesnt matter if its easier for them to get in or not. By definition, racial discrimination occurs when race is used TO ANY DEGREE in the admissions process.

In any case, there are schools out there that advocate such people in the field because they are under-represented. If you are from Town A, most likely, you will end up working in Town A also. Med schools recognize that and want to recruit people from similar areas so that the resources come BACK to the state. i.e. they want to make sure that after training, those docs will eventually help people from their similar background. Note: this is only a trend; there are exceptions.

I agree with you that URMs tend to go back and treat URM populations, just as white docs tend to treat white populations. However, now you are straying away from the argument of whether or not AA is discriminatory and moving into the area of why AA is justified or not. Perhaps AA is justified, but lets call it what it is, de facto racial discrimination.

You could also say that it's unfair/discriminatory that foreign medical students need to have much higher grades on their USMLE to get a residency. Why does this bias exist? Med schools want to make sure that those people it recruits, also end up working for the US. Not take those skills and practise them in a different country. This is why (I have heard) it's harder for IFGs find it harder to locate into a US residency. Is that discrimination? I don't know. but I think med schools are justified in doing this "discrimination" (which I think is too harsh of a word to use) to level the playing field.

Yes it is discriminatory, but its not racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is worse because it involves factors that you have no control over. Choosing to go to a particular school is much more of a choice than the color of your skin.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by exigente chica
Thank you KK and canes2006.
A while back there were not instituions were african americans could attend and get a medical agree. So these schools were created from nothing to help their culture advance in the feild of medicine.
Call it whatever you like, but they have graduated many great doctors, while other schools would not even let them in. So, today the school has become somewhat more diverse, but it was orginally an HBCU and some minorities feel more comfortable being aroung people with the same background and feel that they would loose touch with themselves at other instituions.
Whatever works for you, but don't try that only for them stuff, there are plenty schools that have a majority of s certain type but no one is complaining.

I generally agree with what you said. AA does have its good in society, I'm not debating that. What I am debating is that AA is racial discrimination. Now, you can argue that its necessary to have racial discrimination in the interests of diversity. But lets stop playing with words and call a spade what it is.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by medicine2006
Before you complain about schools that cater to URM you must understand the history behind each of these schools. Meharry was founded by two white brothers. While embarking on a journey westward one of the brothers wagon broke or was ransacked or something. I don't remember the exact details. Anyways these former slaves helped this guy out. Gave him food and shelter. He promised to repay them for their kindness. So years later him and his brother used their own money to set up a school to train black doctors. So all those complaining about Meharry should stop being whinny brats.

As for Howard it was created in 1867 right after the Civil War to educated African students who otherwise would not have a chance elsewhere. A year later the college of medicine was founded to trains African doctors because there was a flood of former slaves in the north that needed doctors.

I believe these schools were founded with a special purpose and to tie their hands and not let them use race as a criteria would be detrimental to their original intended mission.

I agree with this too. But they should be honest and state publicly that they cater to URMs (maybe they do this already, I dont know). I dont have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is claiming to be non-discriminatory/equal opportunity when using AA. I dont know if Meharry/ Howard do this, but I know that the majority of med schools are double-tongued.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I think that private schools should be allowed to use race or ethnicity or religion or gender as a factor in admissions.

Thats all fine and good. But these same schools are lying when they claim to be non-discriminatory.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by laviddee
what a tough issue, and yet a real issue we're going to have to answer and overcome. I for one am for it, and think it's necessary, but I don't think we should sugarcoat what affirmative action is. I think it is a form of discriminaton, but only when looking at it from a racial perspective.

On a socioeconomic level, I think all of us can accept that those who have tougher lives early on, should be given the opportunity to succeed. as Tweetie described, some of us have no idea what it's like working full time, studying full time, shots going on over our heads, just living with no peace... ya know? Therefore whatever your color is, if you live in a scummy area, and just by birth alone are put in a tough living situation... you should be given an extra shot.

On a racial level- it is discrimination. But it's necessary. I think as future doctors we have to understand that we're there for the patients. and many patients prefer and are more comfortable in visiting doctors who are of the same race and who can speak the same language. If schools don't selectively try to encourage and increase the presence of hispanic or native american doctors, etc. who will?

many schools treat each separately, like at michigan undergrad admissions where they boost your gpa up .5(something like that) if you're a URM and if you're disadvantaged socially you get another .3. (i don't know if those are the specific increases, but you get the point that they use them conjunctively)

although i think it's necessary, I think that affirmative action based on the color of your skin alone must one day end. The only reason i say that is, how can we EVER get over the issue of RACE in society, or racial preferences, if schools, government, and jobs are all implementing affirmative action. When you are passed over for a job, or a seat in a school, b/c the person next to you is a minority and you're not-- how can you not be negatively scarred by that and not harbor something against racial preference.

I sound like a politician whose on the fence and can't decide who to make my bed with, but i think AA is totally necessary right now, but there should be a plan made to end it at some point, and rely less on race gradually up to that point.

Socioeconomic affirmative action, however should never end.

I agree 100% with what you said. AA may be a necessary evil, but lets at least be honest about what it is. What I'm claiming is that med schools are less than honest and deceptive when they claim to be EO/AA institutions, and then also claim that they dont discriminate on the basis of race.

 

[laviddee]

Originally posted by DW


Good point and I'll tell you exactly why (and I want to work in poor communities mind you). Because, what many premeds here fail to realize when we go into our 100K of school debt, is that we aren't the one's REALLY picking up the tab to pay for medical education/residency, a lot of that comes out of medicare, medicaid, public funds/tax dollars. And if we are to give any extra assistance to anyone (minorities, poor whites/asians) in order to facilitate their acceptance to/survival of a M.D. program, then thats money coming out of everyone's pocket, and whether you like it our not you are a financial and legal liability to the school, state, and federal government. So, i think its entirely fair to say to applicants of those students who get in with a little help to say "ok, we'll give you a little extra consideration, we'll give you a little $ for school, but you have to pay us back for it by addressing the needs of our state for a while". thats why i think some of aa's goals basically could be addressed IN PART by expanding the scope and direction of programs such as the national health service corps.

as some economist wisely put it "there's no such thing a free lunch"

ALOT of it comes from tax dollars??? I'm sorry- but i think you're talking about 2 different things here... maybe if you're looking at state schools? Either way, when you are in 100k of debt and are paying 3k a mth for 10 years to pay it off, then I really don't see how you can say, "well taxpayers paid for a lot of it".

EVEN IF we are talking about a state school- then DO you think that RACE is considered anywhere near as much as residency??? If we take your suggestion that anyone receiving help from affirmative action should sign a contract to serve in an underserved area, then we should also have anyone from that state who receives residency 'status' to sign a contract to stay in that state.

neither of which i think WILL EVER happen b/c it's simply not the best solution. I can't believe we're suggesting that we sign minorities to a contract to essentially stay in minority areas, "we'll let you become a doctor, but you have to practice where we tell you." And the rational is b/c of the 'tax dollars they receive???'

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Please explain to me (like I'm an idiot, as I know you all will) why it is wrong for med schools to consider race when reviewing an applicant for admissions.

Its not wrong per se. What is wrong is to claim in the same breath that you are non-discriminatory while yet considering race in admissions (i.e. an AA institution)

 

[kimosabe]

OK, first of all the "caucasion schools" as you call them, still give the edge to minorities, yet caucasions are more prevalent in society, thus it makes since that they would be in the majority of students. Almost all schools judge applicants in some way by race, giving the edge to non-whites. Judging someone by the color of their skin is RACISM. People should be " judeged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin" -Martin Luther King -I have a dream speach.
When these colleges say they are sending people to under-represented areas, What does that have to do with race? I'm from an underdeserved area and will probably go back there, however, I am not in the minority, yet they would rather look at my skin tone to decide where I'm from instead of asking me. What are we paying these application fees for? It's just easier for them to pre-judge the history of applicants by their skin color. I'll tell you this, There are few things you can tell by looking or knowing the color of sombody's skin. Racism is Racism, there is no reverse-racism. When you judge by asthetic values it is wrong.
It is just as hard for a white person to home and study as it is a hispanic person and it's just as hard for an asain person to study as it is an african-american. There is no need for judging people by their skin tone, passing judgement is pure ignorance. Peace KIMO

 

[DW]

Originally posted by laviddee


ALOT of it comes from tax dollars??? I'm sorry- but i think you're talking about 2 different things here... maybe if you're looking at state schools? Either way, when you are in 100k of debt and are paying 3k a mth for 10 years to pay it off, then I really don't see how you can say, "well taxpayers paid for a lot of it".

EVEN IF we are talking about a state school- then DO you think that RACE is considered anywhere near as much as residency??? If we take your suggestion that anyone receiving help from affirmative action should sign a contract to serve in an underserved area, then we should also have anyone from that state who receives residency 'status' to sign a contract to stay in that state.

neither of which i think WILL EVER happen b/c it's simply not the best solution. I can't believe we're suggesting that we sign minorities to a contract to essentially stay in minority areas, "we'll let you become a doctor, but you have to practice where we tell you." And the rational is b/c of the 'tax dollars they receive???'

My friend, i implore you, go to your state legislature, pick up a copy of the budget, and look at how many tax dollars are going into medical education. Go to the director of any teaching hospital in the U.S. that isn't a top 10, and ask them if they could survive without government funding. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of medical institutions, with the top schools notwithstanding, would not be in the black financially if it weren't for direct graduate medical education (DGME) payments and the indirect medical education (IME) adjustment trough the Medicare program. Just read the AAMC website right now, the AAMC is pissing their pants cause Nebraska is threatening to stop payments. Even most private schools are getting heavy, HEAVY subsidies from the state. Many of these pretty good "private" schools say they take 50 percent of state residents (Temple, Emory come to mind immediately. MOREHOUSE, A PRIVATE SCHOOL, COULD NOT SURVIVE, NEITHER ITS MEDICAL SCHOOL, STUDENTS, OR ITS CLINICAL AFFLIATIONS WITH GRADY IF THE STATE OF GEORGIA DID NOT TAKE HUGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM THE GOOD OLD BOYS IN CENTRAL GEORGIA TO FUND IT). You wanna know why? because the state is effectively forcing them to, thats why.

i think you might be missing the point here, you're not extending my logic properly. If we give ANY "EXTRA "consideration (i.e. more money) to some poorer group in the education process at any point, what is wrong with signing a document to ensure that for some time that some from that party will address the health needs of the state (which, isn't that the propose of AAMC's URM policy anyway!?!?!). Its only fair. You could live in a state, but receive no public education and not benefit from these policies, and actually be paying for these programs through tax dollars, so it would make little sense to require the same commitment for merely being a state resident, regardless of color. And this is only part of my aa suggestiong, read an earlier post on this. IF THE PLAN IS TO INCREASE DIVERSITY (ECONOMIC MAINLY) IN MEDICAL SCHOOL, SINCE IT IS GENERALLY PUBLICLY FUNDED VENTURE TO A DEGREE, THE STUDENTS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY PROGRAM LIKE AA SHOULD BE HELD PROFESSIONALLY AND FISCALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO SOME, BUT NOT NECESSARILY TOTAL, EXTENT, period.

once again, there's not such thing as a free lunch. If someone pays for something extra for you, you are obliged to repay in some form, plain and simple. If Harvard, who i doubt relies on public funds, decides to practice something like this and lets these kids do whatever they want, they're allowed to, its their money. But all state schools and EVEN MOST PRIVATES, thats not the case.

 

[dr.emma]

Originally posted by geneman
My responses...

1. I think you have a valid point in saying that numbers alone are not the best indicator of performance. But, like most reactionary arguments of this nature (e.g., feminism), the pendulum swings too far the other way.

Numbers DO have an incredible predictive power. During the World Wars, the Army used the IQ test (which is perhaps one of the crudest tests of all) to distribute men among varying positions -- and it was a resounding success. The reason this system works is because the objectivity of numbers far outweighs the inability to characterize humanistic qualities, which in themselves have major measurement flaws (e.g., some people are smooth-talkers but dumb as bricks).

Numbers MAY have an incredible predictive power?if the exams these numbers were derived from were truly reflective of intelligence. These tests were anything BUT objective.

These so-called IQ tests were based on the "inherited view of intelligence" - basically, intelligence was fixed and inherited. A Harvard professor named Robert Yerkes came in to screen the WWI army draftees, where he developed two IQ tests:

1. The Alpha Test:
1. If plants are dying for lack of rain, you should:
______ water them
______ ask a florist?s advice
______ put fertilizer around them
2. It is better to fight than to run, because:
______ cowards are shot
______ it is more honorable
______ if you run you may get shot in the back
3. Why should all parents be made to send their children to school? Because
______ it prepares them for adult life
______ it keeps them out of mischief
______ they are too young to work
(Kessen & Cahan, 1986, p. 647)

2. The Beta Test: used mostly pictures
ex. A picture of a tennis court w/o the net: The question is?"What is missing?"

Not surprisingly, this test showed that an overwhelming percentage of "intelligent" people were non-immigrant, middle-upper class, White Americans. Let's talk about what's objective and what's skewed?

Affirmative Action does favor under-represented minorities, who may or may not have GPA/MCAT scores paralled to a non-minority applicant. But this person can contribute other characteristics that will enrich the overall quality of the student body and the school. For example, this person may introduce a new way of thought or shed a different light on health care in America. I am an Asian American who attended a predominantly white, upper-middle class HS. The discussions in my AP American Politics class was more of a "let's feed off each other's narrow mindedness" session. Ex. "Rep. good, Dem. bad....Reaganomics and free-market capitalism good...big government bad...you get the picture...) I hope my medical school experience will be not be a horrible replay of my past.

 

[DW]

Originally posted by laviddee

I can't believe we're suggesting that we sign minorities to a contract to essentially stay in minority areas, "we'll let you become a doctor, but you have to practice where we tell you."

and i'm NOT talking about racial minorities, again as blind racial considerations are the failure of the AA program , please re-read prior posts. I'm talking about ECONOMIC adjustment here, and that might apply to some races more than others, so it works to alleviate PART of the problem in the long run. Besides, i'm not talking about forcing these ALL of these kids to work their FOREVER, like its indentured servititude. I say, maybe a decade or less, with some incentives built in to stay on later.

 

[laviddee]

it is indentured servitude. You tell someone they have to work in this area for a DECADE- nevermind the family and the life that they want to live.

so is it ok to contractually bind all 'residents' at a state school to stay in the state to help serve the 'needs' of the state?

I'm glad we're politely discussing this, and maybe i do need more information, but there's IS NO WAY i'm going to go to my state legisture to check out the budget. Like i'm not having enough fun writing up to my neck in secondaries. gosh, we can go back and forth, and i predict we may considering we both seem to feel strongly on this.

So let's say that private schools receive funding from the state, then also those private school residents are contractually binded to the state?

I just don't see how b/c a state helps financially support a school, should the URM's be the ones to sacrificially help the state as opposed to the other students.

In the end, it's not who pays that matters. the state has been paying and continues to pay for its own benefit. they want medical schools, they want doctors, and they want hospitals for their residents. But not one of the 50 states has made any contractual bond to a medical student that b/c you receive help from us, you are going to stay here. When you get a grant from your financial aid, why don't you hand it back to them and say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch; I feel I can only accept this if i sign a contract to make sure i work for the institution that offers the money."

Just b/c someone receives help doesn't mean we should make them contractually bound to the entity that gives help.

 

[DW]

Originally posted by laviddee
it is indentured servitude. You tell someone they have to work in this area for a DECADE- nevermind the family and the life that they want to live.

so is it ok to contractually bind all 'residents' at a state school to stay in the state to help serve the 'needs' of the state?

I'm glad we're politely discussing this, and maybe i do need more information, but there's IS NO WAY i'm going to go to my state legisture to check out the budget. Like i'm not having enough fun writing up to my neck in secondaries. gosh, we can go back and forth, and i predict we may considering we both seem to feel strongly on this.

So let's say that private schools receive funding from the state, then also those private school residents are contractually binded to the state?

I just don't see how b/c a state helps financially support a school, should the URM's be the ones to sacrificially help the state as opposed to the other students.

In the end, it's not who pays that matters. the state has been paying and continues to pay for its own benefit. they want medical schools, they want doctors, and they want hospitals for their residents. But not one of the 50 states has made any contractual bond to a medical student that b/c you receive help from us, you are going to stay here. When you get a grant from your financial aid, why don't you hand it back to them and say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch; I feel I can only accept this if i sign a contract to make sure i work for the institution that offers the money."

Just b/c someone receives help doesn't mean we should make them contractually bound to the entity that gives help.

well, you should read that budget. then your opinion would be infinitely more informed. Not trying to be condescending, but very few pre meds realize just how much money it takes to finance anyone's medical education, regardless of public or private schooling. I'll MAIL you a copy of the pennsylvania or Georgia budget (part of my thesis) if you want to see for yourself.

ok, you didn't get all of my last post, regarding the state residency issue i'll requote:

"You could live in a state, but receive no public education and not benefit from these policies, and actually be paying for these programs through tax dollars, so it would make little sense to require the same commitment for merely being a state resident, regardless of color."

if URMs or any other group takes EXTRA TAX DOLLARS OR CONSIDERATION TO HELP THEM AS OPPOSED TO OTHER GROUPS, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If i give you a loan, you pay it back. Cost reward. Its simple economics here. Thats the key....if we make EXTRA (KEY WORD: EXTRA, DOES ANYONE SEE IT?) CONCESSIONS TO ONE GROUP AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER, THEN ITS APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR SOMETHING IN RETURN (again, its the point of the AAMC URM policy in the first place). Does that NOT seem reasonable to anyone out there?

 

[relatively prime]

Originally posted by MacGyver


Its not wrong per se. What is wrong is to claim in the same breath that you are non-discriminatory while yet considering race in admissions (i.e. an AA institution)

Yep... exactly... couldn't have said it better...



By the way... it makes absolutely perfect sense to have a student with sub-par credentials sign a contract saying that they will work in a certain area for x years if admitted. Be that student white, black, or green... if a medical school needs people to work in a certain area and is willing to accept less-than-the-best students with the expectation that these students will work in areas no one wants to be in... then what's wrong with that?

ONE of the main arguements for AA is that minorities are needed in medicine to serve in minority communities... so if a minority student has poor stats but still wants to go to medical school... I see nothing unfair about accepting that student on the condition that they work in a minority community. Now if this were a minority student with stellar stats... that would be different... because that student wouldn't be needing AA.

In fact, I think it's really good way to get doctors into underserved areas.... I say do the same for sub-par white applicants...

 

[DW]

RP, you're a life saver.

 

[jot]

have a student with sub-par credentials sign a contract saying that they will work in a certain area for x years if admitted

i was reading this thread - and this idea sounded pretty decent for a bit - but isn't this tantamount to saying that the underserved are being relegated the sub-par doctors? it is a whole other debate whether or not sub-par ceredentials translates into sub-par clinical skills (i don't know enough info on this - but my gut feeling is that it has some bearing). this is, of course, better than no doctor in the area (is it?) ....

i guess this is analogous to people that did crappy in law schools and are sometimes court appointed public defenders - yeah you get legal help, but the quality may certainly have an impact on your life.

nevertheless, it has merits ...

 

[relatively prime]

jot: I do think students with better credential do end up having better clinical skills. However... I don't think that someone with less credentials is going to have BAD clinical skills.

I believe that people with sub-par credentials can still be very competant doctors... maybe they won't be the best, but they can still be decent doctors.

These underserved areas don't need top-noch nuerosurgeons... the need competant general practice clinicians... which I believe these students with slightly sub-par stats are very capable of being.

Bad doctor is not better than no doctor
BUT competant ,decent doctor is certainly better than no doctor.

 

[laviddee]

Originally posted by DW

"You could live in a state, but receive no public education and not benefit from these policies, and actually be paying for these programs through tax dollars, so it would make little sense to require the same commitment for merely being a state resident, regardless of color."

if URMs or any other group takes EXTRA TAX DOLLARS OR CONSIDERATION TO HELP THEM AS OPPOSED TO OTHER GROUPS, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. If i give you a loan, you pay it back. Cost reward. Its simple economics here. Thats the key....if we make EXTRA (KEY WORD: EXTRA, DOES ANYONE SEE IT?) CONCESSIONS TO ONE GROUP AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER, THEN ITS APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR SOMETHING IN RETURN (again, its the point of the AAMC URM policy in the first place). Does that NOT seem reasonable to anyone out there?

Pardon my inabilities to read completely. I tend to gloss over things sometimes.

URM- under represented minority right? Don't you think that doctors should somehow represent the public. You're argument is based on the unjust allocation of funds to a group such as the URM's who sap money from the state. But in reality, URMs preference is given to better represent the state. And the minority groups they represent also pay taxes and are rightly due doctors they can identify with in their racial group.

and what do you mean when you say about state students, "You could live in a state, but receive no public education and not benefit from these policies, and actually be paying for these programs through tax dollars, " Explain this for a simpleton like me ok? Just so i know what you're saying.

RP:
I think we easily look at one of the benfits of AA - more likelihood of service in an underrepresented area, and then change it and say, THAT'S THE REASON WHY AA EXISTS. It's not why AA was implemented. AA was to account for inequalities in socioeconomic imbalances between applicants and to account for injustices different races may encounter as they go through life.
For many years, as an asian male, I shouted the injustices of affirmative action, gave the spiel of how my parents worked their butt off without the language to provide a good life for themselves and their families. Now as i apply, i find that being asian works against me. But I had lunch with a black lady who worked with me and we talked about all the ways she feels 'racism', gave me specific examples of what she faced, and I think I understand a bit more of what they have to overcome JUST because of the color of their skin. some of us(myself included) truly do not know what it's like to face a world that looks at you, consciously or subconsciously, as inferior, just b/c of your skin color.

i think the best doctors are the ones that love what they do. The underrepresented areas need doctors who have a passion to serve in those areas. I think you'd be doing more harm by forcing doctors to go into areas they dont' want to be at. Have you ever decided to do something benevolently and maybe clean the dishes or clean a room, and then your mother shouts, "clean your room" or "clean those dishes!" just before you were about to do it? and all those good intentions you had of doing it disappears b/c you are now following orders rather than doing it out of the kindness of your heart.
HAVE FAITH! there are doctors who will be from under-represented areas and will go back there b/c they want to help the community they grew up in. I guarantee that they are more likely to do so than rich suburbian kids. of course, there are doctors who never want to go back. But that's the greatness of this country- to take the opportunities given to you and make for yourself a life YOU WANT TO LIVE, not a life someone else says you must live.

 

[geneman]

I don't mean to sound so harsh, but I wish some of you people would READ MORE CAREFULLY. You will note that I added "the IQ test (which is perhaps one of the crudest tests of all)".

I stand by my belief that numbers, however incomplete, are a very effective way of evaluating large amounts of people. And the acknowledgment that numbers are incomplete is a nod to your argument.

Also, I want you to know that the MCAT Bio Sci, Phys Sci, and probably even the Verbal section are objective with respect to race, socioeconomic, etc. I will bet the house that the people who get 13's on BS know more Bio/Orgo than the folks who get 9's.

Originally posted by dr.emma



Numbers MAY have an incredible predictive power?if the exams these numbers were derived from were truly reflective of intelligence. These tests were anything BUT objective.

These so-called IQ tests were based on the "inherited view of intelligence" - basically, intelligence was fixed and inherited. A Harvard professor named Robert Yerkes came in to screen the WWI army draftees, where he developed two IQ tests:

1. The Alpha Test:
1. If plants are dying for lack of rain, you should:
______ water them
______ ask a florist?s advice
______ put fertilizer around them
2. It is better to fight than to run, because:
______ cowards are shot
______ it is more honorable
______ if you run you may get shot in the back
3. Why should all parents be made to send their children to school? Because
______ it prepares them for adult life
______ it keeps them out of mischief
______ they are too young to work
(Kessen & Cahan, 1986, p. 647)

2. The Beta Test: used mostly pictures
ex. A picture of a tennis court w/o the net: The question is?"What is missing?"

Not surprisingly, this test showed that an overwhelming percentage of "intelligent" people were non-immigrant, middle-upper class, White Americans. Let's talk about what's objective and what's skewed?

Affirmative Action does favor under-represented minorities, who may or may not have GPA/MCAT scores paralled to a non-minority applicant. But this person can contribute other characteristics that will enrich the overall quality of the student body and the school. For example, this person may introduce a new way of thought or shed a different light on health care in America. I am an Asian American who attended a predominantly white, upper-middle class HS. The discussions in my AP American Politics class was more of a "let's feed off each other's narrow mindedness" session. Ex. "Rep. good, Dem. bad....Reaganomics and free-market capitalism good...big government bad...you get the picture...) I hope my medical school experience will be not be a horrible replay of my past.

 

[dr.emma]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I never said that the MCAT was a biased exam...I actually don't know enough about the history/origin of the MCAT to make any judgement. I was only retorting to your view regarding the effectiveness of the IQ test during WWI.

I did read your message carefully and I would like to ask you a question...how can you say that the the IQ Test was the crudest test of all, but at the same time believe it to have been effective? Not only did this test NOT accurately measure intelligence, it validated the pre-conceived notion that whites were more "intelligent" than immigrant whites and non-whites.
Numbers may be effective....but it is TOTALLY dependent on the measures in which they have been derived.

 

[relatively prime]

lavidee: That's why I put the "ONE" in capital letters... I wanted to emphsize that I'm aware there is more to AA... but I guess you missed that.

Look, I'm not saying there's any reason at all to make a URM with a 29 MCAT and a 3.5 gpa commit to working in an underserved area. However, I think it's perfectly ok to ask ANY student with a <26 MCAT and a <3.3 gpa who would otherwise be rejected... to commit to working in an underserved area if admitted.

 

[vixen]

I think we should do one of those polls that come up periodically....ya know, stating our race, gpa's etc....

you can always count on finding an AA thread on SDN!

 

[poloace]

hmm..
a school can techinically accept whoever they want if they are privately funded. loma linda is a primarily seventh day adventist institution. they tell you straight up that they give preference to members of their church. in fact, in their app they mention that they DON'T discriminate against:

race, age, sex... etc--- but, the blatantly leave out religious beliefs. so, i don't know... looks like its legal- either that or no one cares enough to raise hell.
p

 

[DW]

Originally posted by laviddee


URM- under represented minority right? Don't you think that doctors should somehow represent the public. You're argument is based on the unjust allocation of funds to a group such as the URM's who sap money from the state. But in reality, URMs preference is given to better represent the state. And the minority groups they represent also pay taxes and are rightly due doctors they can identify with in their racial group.

and what do you mean when you say about state students, "You could live in a state, but receive no public education and not benefit from these policies, and actually be paying for these programs through tax dollars, " Explain this for a simpleton like me ok? Just so i know what you're saying.

Yes, i am very interested in making sure doctors represent and address the public. I did say in my first post I a "pro AA" er. But, lets extend your logic a little more.

Ok, two problems with saying "URMs pay taxes too." First, on the premise established here that URMs are more likely to be financially worse off than other groups, then tax revenue contributed per capita by the URM is NOT the same. Also, please see the word EXTRA I've used a million times in these posts. I dont see why it is unjust if we give some extra help to some groups that are economically disadvantaged (not based on race, again) that some groups might not get to expect something in return, since those extra tax dollars are in part being payed by someone else.

Ok, simple example, and probably repesents the majority of kids in medical school. A white middle class male in state X goes to any old high school, leaves to go to college, gets through college with little difficulty, and gets into his state medical school. But, he has had NONE OF THESE EXTRA ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF ATTEMPTING TO UPGRADE THE DISPARITIES IN POORER COMMUNITIES THAT I HAVE PROPOSED. Henceforth, his and his family's tax revenue goes towards these extra programs for the economically disadvataged that he hasn't taken advantage of. Simple enough? i think its not a far fetched example.

mind you, my contract suggestion is only one topping on the solution pizza.

 

[Diogenes]

Should all these med schools include disclaimers in their applications that they DO discriminate based on GPA, MCAT scores, and EC experiences? After all, they ARE discriminating based on those factors, no?

 

[laviddee]

i like pizza.

and the more toppings the better. keep the ideas coming, it's refreshing to hear that people think about ways to solve problems rather than just complaining about them.

i for one, have spent too much time on this subject matter--- although it is fun.

i think if we keep criticizing each other's arguments, people become a little wary of posting the great ideas they may have.. so i apologize for any criticism before.

 

[kimosabe]

Good call laviddee, I'm not kosher with breaking down other posts into individual words, ANyhow, I think the best solution is to not take race into account, what does is have to do with someone being a good doctor? There are underdeserved areas in Urban as well as rural areas; Black, White, and Hispanic neighborhoods. Who is so obtuse that thay can't practice in a neighborhood that has a majority race other than their own? The point is, you don't fight racism with racism. Lets level the playing field. KIMO

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by kimosabe
Who is so obtuse that thay can't practice in a neighborhood that has a majority race other than their own?

Many, many, many people. That's one part of the problem.

 

[DW]

Originally posted by kimosabe
Who is so obtuse that thay can't practice in a neighborhood that has a majority race other than their own?

i understand your point, but dont put this one past everyone. Ever heard of the Tuskeegee Experiment? Moral of the story, just cause you have an M.D. does not make you wonderful do-gooder.

you'd think doctors wouldn't be so shallow, just like you think doctors wouldn't be as absent minded as to amputate the wrong leg off of someone. but it happens

 

[Diogenes]

It isn't just obtuseness, though. A lot of people want to practice medicine in areas like the areas they grew up in. Take me for example. I want to practice medicine in California. What if all of the best applicants in the country were Californians? That would be a major problem, because too few of us would want to practice medicine in New York, Florida, Ohio, Idaho, etc. Now consider rural vs. suburban vs. urban. Same problem. So it isn't just a racial or ethnic thing.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Should all these med schools include disclaimers in their applications that they DO discriminate based on GPA, MCAT scores, and EC experiences? After all, they ARE discriminating based on those factors, no?

That would be fine and dandy because technically you are correct, but you forgot one important thing, race. They would need to put: "We discriminate based on GPA, MCAT, extracurrics, and race"

If every med school did that, I wouldnt have a problem at all

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Many, many, many people. That's one part of the problem.

You're right, but lets be clear. Black doctors prefer black patients, asian docs prefer asian patients, white docs prefer white patients.

The ethnic self-segregation is spread across the spectrum. Every race has preferences for treating its own. Sometimes, AA supporters imply that ONLY white docs prefer their own race, whereas minorities have zero preferences. Clearly thats not the case

 

[holler79]

Not only are minorities disadvantaged. I am not a URM but I am nowhere near privelaged. I too had to work in high school and work throughout college to pay for tuition, books, car payment, insurance, etc. This obviously impacted my ability to get A's in all my classes and ace the MCAT, so in that respect I may not have the best shot at getting into med school. However, I studied my butt off, worked, volunteered, etc., and still did well but I definitely had many road blocks. Now, I'm really not trying to complain but it is so hard for me to accept the fact that many of my Hispanic and African-American friends who come from wealthy, yes very privelaged homes and never had to work a day in their life and have lower GPA's and MCAT's are attending med school now while I am still on a waitlist. It bothers me so I just had to rant about it, not trying to worsen the controversy.

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by MacGyver

You're right, but lets be clear. Black doctors prefer black patients, asian docs prefer asian patients, white docs prefer white patients.

The ethnic self-segregation is spread across the spectrum. Every race has preferences for treating its own. Sometimes, AA supporters imply that ONLY white docs prefer their own race, whereas minorities have zero preferences. Clearly thats not the case

I'm not so sure that it is a "I prefer this race of patient" as it is "I want to practice medicine in this place" and/or "I want patients of this socio-economic level." These latter two desires can limit the racial profile of a doctors patients, but this does not mean that the doctor is catering their practice to a specific race of patients.

I personally don't give a rat's ass what color my patients are, but I want them to be in non-rural California and I want them to be in a good enough socio-economic position where they able to pay their bills, and I would prefer that they are not overly litigious.

 

[geneman]

Absolutely agree with you -- numbers are only as effective as their derivation methods. Meaning if a test is good (and I think the MCAT is pretty good at roughly determining science abilities), then the numbers gain more credibility. Also, you're right, the IQ test did legitimize the false idea that whites were more intelligent than others, by including questions with inherent cultural bias.

The IQ Test was a very crude test *and* (not however) was extremely effective in its goal -- properly allocating men to different Army positions with different mental requirements based on their IQ scores. I said both statements simultaneously to add emphasis to the notion that even the most crude of tests can give meaningful results (implying that refined tests, like the MCAT, can give very meaningful results).

Originally posted by dr.emma
I did read your message carefully and I would like to ask you a question...how can you say that the the IQ Test was the crudest test of all, but at the same time believe it to have been effective? Not only did this test NOT accurately measure intelligence, it validated the pre-conceived notion that whites were more "intelligent" than immigrant whites and non-whites.
Numbers may be effective....but it is TOTALLY dependent on the measures in which they have been derived.

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by laviddee
i think if we keep criticizing each other's arguments, people become a little wary of posting the great ideas they may have.. so i apologize for any criticism before.

Actually, I disagree. Constructively criticizing each other's arguments is the basis for any substantial discussion, and it's the only way to form a consensus.

This is exactly what the US government has just begun on Iraq in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week. They all agree that Saddam poses a great threat to our nation (analagous to: we all agree that diversity is important), but there are a ton of different strategies and tactics on how to best address this problem (analagous to: we all have different solutions on how to "solve" affirmative action).

The point is, that only through discussions like these, however frustrating, will we ever be able to come to some sort of compromise that is amenable to almost everyone. It's one of the reasons why I continue to post on these types of threads (and it's a good mental break from secondaries...).

 

[geneman]

Originally posted by DW

Ever heard of the Tuskeegee Experiment? Moral of the story, just cause you have an M.D. does not make you wonderful do-gooder.

you'd think doctors wouldn't be so shallow, just like you think doctors wouldn't be as absent minded as to amputate the wrong leg off of someone. but it happens

Wow. I just read about the Tuskegee Experiment. That was evil. Reminds me of some documentary that showed actual footage on how the Nazi's used Jews as guinea pigs (e.g., testing the human reaction to very thin atmosphere). I almost threw up watching that.

As for the doc's that amputate the wrong legs, I used think that those physicians should be shot. But after reading some research paper on how medical errors typically occur, I've had a change of heart. Basically the paper concluded that huge errors, like operating on the wrong side of the brain, occur mainly as a result of many, many little errors.

 

[laviddee]

Originally posted by geneman


Actually, I disagree. Constructively criticizing each other's arguments is the basis for any substantial discussion, and it's the only way to form a consensus.

This is exactly what the US government has just begun on Iraq in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week. They all agree that Saddam poses a great threat to our nation (analagous to: we all agree that diversity is important), but there are a ton of different strategies and tactics on how to best address this problem (analagous to: we all have different solutions on how to "solve" affirmative action).

The point is, that only through discussions like these, however frustrating, will we ever be able to come to some sort of compromise that is amenable to almost everyone. It's one of the reasons why I continue to post on these types of threads (and it's a good mental break from secondaries...).

I agree heated discourse is better than no discourse. I'm glad people discuss issues rather than just listing ideas. i just don't like when often people's prides get in the way, and then everyone starts nitpicking over specific words used. that's all.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Should all these med schools include disclaimers in their applications that they DO discriminate based on GPA, MCAT scores, and EC experiences? After all, they ARE discriminating based on those factors, no?

Hmm...so what exactly is your point again?

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki


Hmm...so what exactly is your point again?

My point is that discrimination is inherent in an admissions process. Everyone should get over it.

 

[Bikini Princess]

Originally posted by Diogenes

My point is that discrimination is inherent in an admissions process. Everyone should get over it.

Once someone told me this, I think it's was an upbeat statement:

Just because the world isn't fair, doesn't mean that there aren't things we can do to make it more fair.

ps - still haven't found an "honest man" yet, diogenes?

 

[Diogenes]

Bikini, who told you that and when?

 

[Diogenes]

Look, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but the system is what it is and it isn't going to change fast enough for it to make any difference in the admissions processes of the people on this site. So everyone should just suck it up, do their best, and don't blame "the system" if they fail to gain admissions to the school of their dreams. You can't always have everything you want. It is a fact of life. And you can't always get everything you think you deserve. People often overestimate what they deserve.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

No, seriously...what's your point?

What does discriminating on the basis of MCAT/GPA have anything to do with discriminating on the basis of race?

 

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
No, seriously...what's your point?

What does discriminating on the basis of MCAT/GPA have anything to do with discrimination on the basis of race?

The GPA/MCAT thing was sarcasm.

The part about discrimination being a part of the admissions process was cynicism. Cynicism coupled with impatience with people that blame their problems on things beyond their control instead of shouldering the responsibility themselves.