Revamp Medical School Admissions to Mimic Residency Application Process

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Incorrect, I am not discounting their efforts. Everyone works hard for their life (hopefully). I'm just presenting the data that exists and how the AAMC justifies the SES that you also say you want expanded.

Numbers are numbers, I'm sorry. =)
The AAMC "justifies" a lot of things bc they hold the monopoly to medical school admissions. Including now including Biochem, Sociology, and Psychology on the MCAT as if that will change a **** thing. Spoiler alert: it won't.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I agree but I think that there's a way to value extremely high numbers and be mindful of SES. For example, if someone has a 3.7 and 34-35 but grew up with a single mom and a family income of 20K I would personally interview them if I were on Wash U's admissions committee, even though their averages are 3.85/38. You need to have high standards, but perhaps account for that "wow" factor when you see reasonable numbers and an inspiring rise from the bottom. Started from the bottom now we here, nah mean?
Unless your medical school is a rural school, they don't care if you're low SES and you're white or Asian. Low SES is a roundabout way of getting at affirmative action without saying it directly, bc the word is so charged in today's environment.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree but I think that there's a way to value extremely high numbers and be mindful of SES. For example, if someone has a 3.7 and 34-35 but grew up with a single mom and a family income of 20K I would personally interview them if I were on Wash U's admissions committee, even though their averages are 3.85/38. You need to have high standards, but perhaps account for that "wow" factor when you see reasonable numbers and an inspiring rise from the bottom. Started from the bottom now we here, nah mean?

Please let me know if I'm taking you out of context.

You agree with SES, but wish it had less weight? Sure, that's not out of the purview of the argument; and I think that is reasonable as opposed to disbanding SES (across race) altogether.
 
Please let me know if I'm taking you out of context.

You agree with SES, but wish it had less weight? Sure, that's not out of the purview of the argument; and I think that is reasonable as opposed to disbanding SES (across race) altogether.

No, I would personally disband all affirmative action based on race and instead give individual boosts to people from extremely low income backgrounds regardless of race (this would still capture many minorities). At the same time, I value extremely high stats and am thus trying to defend both because people are suggesting that the indigent don't test well. However, a lot of people here support training physicians who will be committed to serving the disadvantaged/certain racial groups. In order to do this more effectively, I've proposed looking deeper into applicants' backgrounds during interviews (especially those who checked racial boxes that traditionally give an advantage because of the aforementioned goal). This would allow adcoms to better differentiate applicants' based on who is really likely to serve the underserved. In essence, I'm arguing that URM advantage should be a sliding scale in terms of the admissions advantage that it gives. Right now, simply checking URM gives those applicants a huge boost, no questions asked.
 
Unless your medical school is a rural school, they don't care if you're low SES and you're white or Asian.

This part I do agree with, in order for SES to be fair it should be applied equally for it to be fair and effective.

Assuming white or Asian means wealthy and supportive family also is not fair -- though, I think I made that point indirectly already.
 
I'm sort of a cynical person here and I feel that you are using the rest of your points as a pretext to launch a massive discussion on affirmative action and how socioeconomic status should be a consideration in admissions instead of race. Just be clear with your intentions.


I didn't get that impression at all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I agree, I think showing interest in the underserved is always a plus regardless of what race you apply as. I was just wondering if anyone had data to back up that SES isn't the main factor for likelihood to return to underserved communities as a physician (as in SES vs. likelihood to return has no correlation). If so, then the URM data could stand on its own no problem. Since URMs are more likely to be low SES, and in turn URMs are more likely to return to underserved communities, it is only logical to look at the data from both the race-alone, as well as SES-alone perspectives. I don't know if I make any sense lol
Your point makes sense. I just don't have the answer. It may have been brought up in one of those older "flame wars" though. I think it's difficult to make absolute predictions on where a specific person will practice as a physician, so ppl will only rely on "likelihood." I realize that it's a tougher process for some to stand out. If you're Asian, and have a working class background (ie not quite middle class), it looks like you'll have more hoops to jump through. But from my experience, ppl in this demographic aren't really advised well in terms of distinguishing themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
First, I thought I was talking about SES, why is everyone discussing URM with me? I acknowledge I am an URM but I'm sticking to SES points here.

Second, hypothetically if I had data that said that those likely to receive SES or URMs were to go onto serve the underserved would this assuage your concerns?
 
No, I would personally disband all affirmative action based on race and instead give individual boosts to people from extremely low income backgrounds regardless of race (this would still capture many minorities). At the same time, I value extremely high stats and am thus trying to defend both because people are suggesting that the indigent don't test well. However, a lot of people here support training physicians who will be committed to serving the disadvantaged/certain racial groups. In order to do this more effectively, I've proposed looking deeper into applicants' backgrounds during interviews (especially those who checked racial boxes that traditionally give an advantage because of the aforementioned goal). This would allow adcoms to better differentiate applicants' based on who is really likely to serve the underserved. In essence, I'm arguing that URM advantage should be a sliding scale in terms of the admissions advantage that it gives. Right now, simply checking URM gives those applicants a huge boost, no questions asked.
This has been talked about previously and certain thought leaders have given their views why this isn't a tenable option (they leave out the part about how certain people would no longer benefit). I agree with you by the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don't know, class rank is difficult. It's hard to compare class rank/percentile when you're at a top private school with a class size of 500 vs a large university with a class of 10k. In medical school, the demands at different institutions are much more equal than the demands at different undergraduate institutions.

But this information would tell adcoms how you do WITHIN your school. This would particularly help applicants from grade deflated schools. If you're top 5% at Uchicago with a 3.75 I feel like that's useful information to adcoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
No, I would personally disband all affirmative action based on race and instead give individual boosts to people from extremely low income backgrounds regardless of race (this would still capture many minorities). At the same time, I value extremely high stats and am thus trying to defend both because people are suggesting that the indigent don't test well. However, a lot of people here support training physicians who will be committed to serving the disadvantaged/certain racial groups. In order to do this more effectively, I've proposed looking deeper into applicants' backgrounds during interviews (especially those who checked racial boxes that traditionally give an advantage because of the aforementioned goal). This would allow adcoms to better differentiate applicants' based on who is really likely to serve the underserved. In essence, I'm arguing that URM advantage should be a sliding scale in terms of the admissions advantage that it gives. Right now, simply checking URM gives those applicants a huge boost, no questions asked.

I see the point you're making, but discounting race will reduce the representation URM's have in the medical field, which is going backwards. Is it a perfect process? Not by any means, but that shouldn't mean we need to worsen the situation. Diversity in the medical field is a much much greater priority than making an all around "fair" system for premeds who dream of becoming a doctor. I've said this a lot before, but I believe the idea to discount race altogether in medical school admissions in favor of only SES (rather than both) is a very short-sighted idea and pretty selfish too.
 
I see the point you're making, but discounting race will reduce the representation URM's have in the medical field, which is going backwards. Is it a perfect process? Not by any means, but that shouldn't mean we need to worsen the situation. Diversity in the medical field is a much much greater priority than making an all around "fair" system for premeds who dream of becoming a doctor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Ironically, this video applies A LOT better to those who say race being part of admissions is unfair. :pompous:
You're right bc if any field should have active social engineering in its admissions criteria of becoming doctors -- it should be medicine. Couldn't possibly be bc the people who gain from affirmative action are the first to defend it, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I see the point you're making, but discounting race will reduce the representation URM's have in the medical field, which is going backwards. Is it a perfect process? Not by any means, but that shouldn't mean we need to worsen the situation. Diversity in the medical field is a much much greater priority than making an all around "fair" system for premeds who dream of becoming a doctor. I've said this a lot before, but I believe the idea to discount race altogether in medical school admissions in favor of only SES (rather than both) is a very short-sighted idea and pretty selfish too.

Is there data (not from the AAMC) that points to the fact that higher URM representation in the medical field actually improves health outcomes? I do agree that making admissions SES-conscious but not URM conscious is basically only benefiting applicants though. Do I agree with this proposed change? Yeah.
 
I see the point you're making, but discounting race will reduce the representation URM's have in the medical field, which is going backwards. Is it a perfect process? Not by any means, but that shouldn't mean we need to worsen the situation. Diversity in the medical field is a much much greater priority than making an all around "fair" system for premeds who dream of becoming a doctor. I've said this a lot before, but I believe the idea to discount race altogether in medical school admissions in favor of only SES (rather than both) is a very short-sighted idea and pretty selfish too.

I strongly believe that at the very least, there should be SOME secondary factor that qualifies someone for a boost in admissions. Most adcoms today argue that URMs who are given preferential treatment are more likely to "go back and serve those of their own race" which in and of itself is curiously racist. Given this universally accepted (by the adcoms) mantra, I've been arguing for much more stringent screening to really identify those who would be willing to go back and serve certain populations. Would another URM opening up a derm practice in Scarsdale really add diversity to the field that would justify a significant admissions boost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Okey dokey. From a cursory glance at your post, it seems that you think the residency match system is more seamless than medical school admissions. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are actually quite similar. The only difference is (from what I can see) is a much heavier emphasis on Step 1 and research and preclinical grades. I think already being in medical school communicates that you are already interested in a field, hence a sharply decreased emphasis on independent clinical involvement.

Understandable. However, it's inarguable that there's a significantly smaller emphasis on ECs and other "soft" factors. It's also much more political, which may or may not be to a person's liking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I strongly believe that at the very least, there should be SOME secondary factor that qualifies someone for a boost in admissions. Most adcoms today argue that URMs who are given preferential treatment are more likely to "go back and serve those of their own race" which in and of itself is curiously racist. Given this universally accepted (by the adcoms) mantra, I've been arguing for much more stringent screening to really identify those who would be willing to go back and serve certain populations. Would another URM opening up a derm practice in Scarsdale really add diversity to the field that would justify a significant admissions boost?
It's also a lie as many of the URMs being recruited aren't the ones it was intended to help.
http://magazine.good.is/articles/ivy-league-fooled-how-america-s-top-colleges-avoid-real-diversity
Call it the Ivy League’s dirty little secret: While America’s most elite colleges do in fact make it a point to promote ethnic diversity on their campuses, a lot of them do so by admitting hugely disproportionate numbers of wealthy immigrants and their children rather than black students with deep roots—and troubled histories—in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's also a lie as many of the URMs being recruited aren't the ones it was intended to help.
http://magazine.good.is/articles/ivy-league-fooled-how-america-s-top-colleges-avoid-real-diversity
Call it the Ivy League’s dirty little secret: While America’s most elite colleges do in fact make it a point to promote ethnic diversity on their campuses, a lot of them do so by admitting hugely disproportionate numbers of wealthy immigrants and their children rather than black students with deep roots—and troubled histories—in the United States.

Bingo. These are my exact anecdotes depicted in an article. Adcoms will always take the path of least resistance when it comes to matters like this. I was simply proposing something that would make the process much more stringent but (obviously) involve more work for committees.
 
Speaking of things that are wrong with admissions, can we do a PSA to all schools and student panels to stop with the "we are above average on everything" and "we are so collaborative" and "there is TOO MUCH help" gimmicks? Those were honestly really irritating "facts" to hear after a while and wasted time we could have used to see if your anatomy lab felt like a dungeon.
 
Bingo. These are my exact anecdotes depicted in an article. Adcoms will always take the path of least resistance when it comes to matters like this. I was simply proposing something that would make the process much more stringent but (obviously) involve more work for committees.
Not as it is now. It's much easier to proclaim "diversity" as it is now, without actually benefitting the people it was intended to help.
 
Speaking of things that are wrong with the admissions, can we do a PSA to all schools and student panels to stop with the "we are above average on everything" and "we are so collaborative" and "there is TOO MUCH help" gimmicks? Those were honestly really irritating "facts" to hear after a while and wasted time we could have used to see if your anatomy lab felt like a dungeon.
Medical schools admissions is selling you a product. Some are better at it, than others. They also have the same talking points down. There is a reason they do it like this, and don't wish to be evaluated on real metrics: USMLE Step 1 scores, etc. although some of this information can be hunted down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Considering the fact that residencies are often looking for candidates who will do research and thus advance the institution of the residency, research cutoffs seem legitimate. In addition, while standardized tests certainly have their flaws, they are arguably the only objective measure we have to compare applicants; no part of medical education is truly standardized.

Another important distinction to make is the increased possibility to "make up" for an otherwise unremarkable application with research. For example, IMGs and people with 210-220 Step Is can spend 2-3 years researching at an institution, getting to know the people there, making good impressions, and match into a competitive specialty. I feel like the medical school admissions process is much less forgiving (although there are post-bacs for poor GPAs).
 
You're right bc if any field should have active social engineering in its admissions criteria of becoming doctors -- it should be medicine. Couldn't possibly be bc the people who gain from affirmative action are the first to defend it, right?

Well, Medicine is a SOCIAL career and the career also had an atrocious history with race, so makes sense to me. I'm not 100% sure if you me, when you say "who gain from affirmative action" or are you referring to some third person? In any case, I'm ORM (and probably one of the most overrepresented in this term), so I am not biased when I'm defending it. I just see the benefits overall.

Is there data (not from the AAMC) that points to the fact that higher URM representation in the medical field actually improves health outcomes? I do agree that making admissions SES-conscious but not URM conscious is basically only benefiting applicants though. Do I agree with this proposed change? Yeah.

There probably is, but it isn't very abundant right now, since by the very definition, URM's are underrepresented, so there wouldn't be that much data to support the positive effects of all around diversity since there hasn't really BEEN diversity (yet).

I strongly believe that at the very least, there should be SOME secondary factor that qualifies someone for a boost in admissions. Most adcoms today argue that URMs who are given preferential treatment are more likely to "go back and serve those of their own race" which in and of itself is curiously racist. Given this universally accepted (by the adcoms) mantra, I've been arguing for much more stringent screening to really identify those who would be willing to go back and serve certain populations. Would another URM opening up a derm practice in Scarsdale really add diversity to the field that would justify a significant admissions boost?

Definitely. I'm ORM but I grew up very poor and am the first in my family to attend high school. Many of my friends are surprised that this makes a difference in success rates of graduating college and pursuing careers such as medicine. I'm just saying that race should not be eliminated as an admission factor. I do agree SES is a good thing and it's a form of diversity as well.

It's also a lie as many of the URMs being recruited aren't the ones it was intended to help.
http://magazine.good.is/articles/ivy-league-fooled-how-america-s-top-colleges-avoid-real-diversity
Call it the Ivy League’s dirty little secret: While America’s most elite colleges do in fact make it a point to promote ethnic diversity on their campuses, a lot of them do so by admitting hugely disproportionate numbers of wealthy immigrants and their children rather than black students with deep roots—and troubled histories—in the United States.

Affirmative Action in undergraduate institutions serves a different purpose altogether than the "race based admissions" medical school does. Yes, both attempt to diversify their classes, but for completely different reasons, reasons that I'd rather not go into, as that would derail the thread.
 
Another important distinction to make is the increased possibility to "make up" for an otherwise unremarkable application with research. For example, IMGs and people with 210-220 Step Is can spend 2-3 years researching at an institution, getting to know the people there, making good impressions, and match into a competitive specialty. I feel like the medical school admissions process is much less forgiving (although there are post-bacs for poor GPAs).
Some PDs fall for that, but most don't. In medicine, there are enough people to want people to be their lab *****. Whether you'll get a residency out of it is a whole another story.
 
Affirmative Action in undergraduate institutions serves a different purpose altogether than the "race based admissions" medical school does. Yes, both attempt to diversify their classes, but for completely different reasons, reasons that I'd rather not go into, as that would derail the thread.
You can all it "race based admissions" at the med school level all you want. It IS affirmative action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There probably is, but it isn't very abundant right now, since by the very definition, URM's are underrepresented, so there wouldn't be that much data to support the positive effects of all around diversity since there hasn't really BEEN diversity (yet).

Then we are actively pursuing one avenue we don't even have data for because AAMC says so basically. I'm not trying to argue against URM policies this time around, I'm arguing the merits of the facts that I just realized don't get questioned on these threads ever. Where is the robust research (not produced by AAMC because we know they are the epitome of impartiality) to back these policies up?
 
Then we are actively pursuing one avenue we don't even have data for because AAMC says so basically. I'm not trying to argue against URM policies this time around, I'm arguing the merits of the facts that I just realized don't get questioned on these threads ever. Where is the robust research (not produced by AAMC because we know they are the epitome of impartiality) to back these policies up?
You don't feel comfortable with, "There probably is, but it isn't very abundant right now"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I strongly believe that at the very least, there should be SOME secondary factor that qualifies someone for a boost in admissions. Most adcoms today argue that URMs who are given preferential treatment are more likely to "go back and serve those of their own race" which in and of itself is curiously racist. Given this universally accepted (by the adcoms) mantra, I've been arguing for much more stringent screening to really identify those who would be willing to go back and serve certain populations. Would another URM opening up a derm practice in Scarsdale really add diversity to the field that would justify a significant admissions boost?
I think it's more like serving their "communities." I don't know if you're from NY, but you'll see at Sinai that East Harlem has a sizable Hispanic and African American population. So any doctor working there will have patients from more than one underserved ethnicity. If you venture down to the Lower East Side, you'll see a major clinic that serves Hispanics and Asians (many from the Chinatown area). Some Asian doctors there even speak Spanish. And as I was pointing out to @Fabio Lanzoni earlier, an Asian applicant can stand out by working in such a clinic (especially if they learned Spanish). I agree about the URM opening up a practice in Scarsdale, but these underserved communities usually have patients of multiple ethnic backgrounds. It's not simply "ppl serving those of their own race."
 
You can all it "race based admissions" at the med school level all you want. It IS affirmative action.

*sigh* I guess I'll get into it a little bit.

What is affirmative action? Why is it called this way? It's a process that "affirms" that there is action being done to undo the racism that led to statistics that lead to minorities being in the single digits in the workplace and institutions of learning. This process would "affirm" through statistics showing more diverse work environments and classes. Undergraduate institutions do this as well for this very reason.

Medical school admissions have less interest in "undoing racism" in institutions of higher learning. Am I saying they have no interest at all? No. But, from what I've seen talking to admission committees the past few years (and SDN adcoms), "race based admissions" seeks to diversify the medical field by diversifying healthcare. There are many reasons why this is being done. One reason: Minorities, such as African Americans, have had atrocious things done to them in the past in medicine, and it isn't unreasonable for many to still be doubtful of healthcare.
 
*sigh* I guess I'll get into it a little bit.

What is affirmative action? Why is it called this way? It's a process that "affirms" that there is action being done to undo the racism that led to statistics that lead to minorities being in the single digits in the workplace and institutions of learning. This process would "affirm" through statistics showing more diverse work environments and classes. Undergraduate institutions do this as well for this very reason.

Medical school admissions have less interest in "undoing racism" in institutions of higher learning. Am I saying they have no interest at all? No. But, from what I've seen talking to admission committees the past few years (and SDN adcoms), "race based admissions" seeks to diversify the medical field by diversifying healthcare. There are many reasons why this is being done. One reason: Minorities, such as African Americans, have had atrocious things done to them in the past in medicine, and it isn't unreasonable for many to still be doubtful of healthcare.
Yes, and minorities are also known to want WHITE doctors, bc they felt they were purposefully being given inferior doctors, the ones they felt were let in with affirmative action...oops I mean "race-based admissions" policies.
 
I think it's more like serving their "communities." I don't know if you're from NY, but you'll see at Sinai that East Harlem has a sizable Hispanic and African American population. So any doctor working there will have patients from more than one underserved ethnicity. If you venture down to the Lower East Side, you'll see a major clinic that serves Hispanics and Asians (many from the Chinatown area). Some Asian doctors there even speak Spanish. And as I was pointing out to @Fabio Lanzoni earlier, an Asian applicant can stand out by working in such a clinic (especially if they learned Spanish). I agree about the URM opening up a practice in Scarsdale, but these underserved communities usually have patients of multiple ethnic backgrounds. It's not simply "ppl serving those of their own race."
Funny, the URMs I know that lived in not so great circumstances wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and had no intention of returning to such a ****-hole to practice.
 
Funny, the URMs I know that lived in not so great circumstances wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and had no intention of returning to such a ****-hole to practice.

That's something else that I've had trouble understanding in regards to AA. Suppose you grew up in the ghetto, impoverished, around violence. You finally attend medical school, go through residency, get married, and become an attending. Now assuming you're making 150K + regardless of specialty, are you really going to move into an area that could place you, your spouse, and your kids in harms way (especially since you've presumably seen the kind of violence that can rip families apart)?
 
Funny, the URMs I know that lived in not so great circumstances wanted to get out of there as fast as possible and had no intention of returning to such a ****-hole to practice.
So what is the ****-hole you're referring to? And what does that have to do with what I just posted?
 
That's something else that I've had trouble understanding in regards to AA. Suppose you grew up in the ghetto, impoverished, around violence. You finally attend medical school, go through residency, get married, and become an attending. Now assuming you're making 150K + regardless of specialty, are you really going to move into an area that could place you, your spouse, and your kids in harms way (especially since you've presumably seen the kind of violence that can rip families apart)?
See the Bakke case, and see what happened to Chavis who ended up destroying people's lives.
 
So what is the ****-hole you're referring to? And what does that have to do with what I just posted?
****-hole = areas of extreme poverty, violence, etc.

My point is the URMs I know don't want to practice there anymore than the ORMs do, bc they realize what bad places they are to work: no resources, etc.
 
All right, let's diversify the discussion since clearly people are most interested in debating the merits of the MCAT and Affirmative Action.
Point 3: Make requirements for letters of recommendation more flexible is something that everyone seemed to have agreed with. What if we required:

1. Letter from ANY professor who knows you well.
2. Letter from a preceptor of a nonclinical EC who has worked with you in some capacity (perhaps to organize fundraisers, start organizations, etc.)
3. Letter from a research PI or a physician from a clinical EC (like hospital volunteering/shadowing).
4. An additional letter of your choice

Does this sound better? I think requiring #2 is novel and could be particularly useful to committees.
 
All right, let's diversify the discussion since clearly people are most interested in debating the merits of the MCAT and Affirmative Action.
Point 3: Make requirements for letters of recommendation more flexible is something that everyone seemed to have agreed with. What if we required:

1. Letter from ANY professor who knows you well.
2. Letter from a preceptor of a nonclinical EC who has worked with you in some capacity (perhaps to organize fundraisers, start organizations, etc.)
3. Letter from a research PI or a physician from a clinical EC (like hospital volunteering/shadowing).
4. An additional letter of your choice

Does this sound better? I think requiring #2 is novel and could be particularly useful to committees.

I don't see the point of having a professor letter. What can they possibly say that will blow an ad com's mind? Your grade pretty much speaks for itself. If your grade isn't representative of your normal performance, than the rest of your classes should demonstrate that.
 
That's something else that I've had trouble understanding in regards to AA. Suppose you grew up in the ghetto, impoverished, around violence. You finally attend medical school, go through residency, get married, and become an attending. Now assuming you're making 150K + regardless of specialty, are you really going to move into an area that could place you, your spouse, and your kids in harms way (especially since you've presumably seen the kind of violence that can rip families apart)?
Who says you have to move into the area?!
Also, in the case of Spanish Harlem and Yorkville (UES), there are vast differences in wealth from one block to another. Clearly, wealthy ppl don't mind living on 96th and 5th when there are housing projects a few blocks away on Madison Ave (~99th and Madison).
And what about all of the doctors that practice at Columbia Presbyterian?! Columbia also serves a wealthy demographic (even though it's in Wash Heights). Also, Bellevue Hospital is in a pretty nice area.

There are examples of this outside of NY. What about Hopkins? It gets patients from all over. And ppl from every possible demographic are served at USC (Keck and LA County Hospital).

You definitely oversimplified things with the notion of putting your family in harm's way.
 
****-hole = areas of extreme poverty, violence, etc.

My point is the URMs I know don't want to practice there anymore than the ORMs do, bc they realize what bad places they are to work: no resources, etc.
Ok, but I was talking about the area around a major NY academic center, which has flaws, but is definitely not the ****-hole you described. So you can practice there and live happily on the Upper East Side. And you can practice at USC-LA County hospital and live in Pasadena.
 
Then we are actively pursuing one avenue we don't even have data for because AAMC says so basically. I'm not trying to argue against URM policies this time around, I'm arguing the merits of the facts that I just realized don't get questioned on these threads ever. Where is the robust research (not produced by AAMC because we know they are the epitome of impartiality) to back these policies up?

I am not saying that there aren't. I will have to get back to you on another day, since I don't have the time to go through pubmed/google scholar right now. #SN2edDay14

Yes, and minorities are also known to want WHITE doctors, bc they felt they were purposefully being given inferior doctors, the ones they felt were let in with affirmative action...oops I mean "race-based admissions" policies.

I hope you're just kidding. Medical schools don't admit under-qualified applicants who would flunk med schools just for the sake of diversity. Just because a person has a lower MCAT or GPA doesn't mean they will be a better doctor. Becoming a good doctor is not dependent on numbers.

I think you said this awhile ago.

Guess what, even admissions committees admit that above a certain threshold MCAT/GPA, any person can graduate from medical school and enter residency. If you believe that the higher your MCAT score/GPA the better you will be for your patients, you are thoroughly delusional. No admissions committee has ever made that claim.
 
Ok, but I was talking about the area around a major NY academic center, which has flaws, but is definitely not the ****-hole you described. So you can practice there and live happily on the Upper East Side. And you can practice at USC-LA County hospital and live in Pasadena.
Again, patients in those areas tend to also be more non-compliant, more likely to sue, etc. If you work at an academic medical center, where someone else pays for overhead, then you have no choice but to see them.
 
I hope you're just kidding. Medical schools don't admit under-qualified applicants who would flunk med schools just for the sake of diversity. Just because a person has a lower MCAT or GPA doesn't mean they will be a better doctor. I recall adcoms saying that, after a minimum threshold, anyone can handle the coursework and rigor of med school. Becoming a good doctor is not dependent on numbers.
Read what I said carefully, AGAIN. I didn't say it was correct. It was patient perception. Who are you to say they are wrong for feeling this way?
 
Again, patients in those areas tend to also be more non-compliant, more likely to sue, etc. If you work at an academic medical center, where someone else pays for overhead, then you have no choice but to see them.
So it goes from extreme violence (which doesn't apply in places like Sinai) to non-compliance?! I don't follow you. There are plenty of docs at Columbia and Sinai that choose to serve those populations.
 
Who says you have to move into the area?!
Also, in the case of Spanish Harlem and Yorkville (UES), there are vast differences in wealth from one block to another. Clearly, wealthy ppl don't mind living on 96th and 5th when there are housing projects a few blocks away on Madison Ave (~99th and Madison).
And what about all of the doctors that practice at Columbia Presbyterian?! Columbia also serves a wealthy demographic (even though it's in Wash Heights). Also, Bellevue Hospital is in a pretty nice area.

There are examples of this outside of NY. What about Hopkins? It gets patients from all over. And ppl from every possible demographic are served at USC (Keck and LA County Hospital).

You definitely oversimplified things with the notion of putting your family in harm's way.

OK. I really wanted to change the topic but this motivated me to make a final point. Yes, I agree that elite, wealthy, highly specialized tertiary/quaternary academic medical centers in inner cities serve the poor and underserved. However, the jobs you're describing (attending positions at Columbia presby and Mount Sinai) are some of the most desirable jobs in the country. Do you really think that an ORM would be less likely to want to work at Columbia and live on the UES? Every attending at these places serves the underserved, they don't pick and choose their patients. When we're discussing serving the underserved, we're talking about moving to places other people don't want to move to like rural/impoverished areas or working at run down community hospitals in the middle of nowhere. The attending positions at top medical centers (which are actually geared towards those accomplished in research and not what we're discussing) aren't really relevant to boosts in med school admissions. Let's move on to point 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top