Rich URM's vs. poor whites and Asians

[Corn-Trollio]

is there AA for URM to get jobs driving taxis in NYC?

I don't see too many white cab drivers and I think that is WRONG!!

When I get picked up at LaGuardia, I want somebody that looks like me.

granted, that person may be a lousy driver, but I am tired of all those Indian and Nigerian cab drivers

Diversity is great, even if quality suffers.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[irlandesa]

Originally posted by medicine2006
Read about the Tuskegee Syphylis experiments done on black people and maybe you'll understand why blacks might be affraid white doctors will do bad things to them. Until then you'll never understand!

FYI, I do know about the Tuskegee Syphylis experiments, and I am not criticizing the argument that URM's might feel uncomfortable with a white physician, just the spirit in which the argument is often used. There have also been a large number of reported cases of male gyn's sexually abusing female patients, so I do in fact know the feeling of being nervous for my own protection. I could also play devil's advocate again here and ask why a white female such as myself should trust a black physician with my care b/c many blacks are righteously angry toward white people and might act upon that anger? however, 3 posts on this subject on my part is quite enough, especially considering that the "uh uh, you're wrong, I'm right, white people suck" argument is sure to ensue..

 

[scifi]

i used to have mixed feelings about AA. i thought it was necessary to have it in order to promote minorities in fields which they are not typically represented. then i thought it was unfair that it excludes certain minorities becase of statistics at college campuses, etc.

when it comes down to it, though, i think that direct efforts at diversification are needed in medicine more so than in any other field. forget "my difficult life experiences" or "i grew up in a poor family". all this whining is focused on the needs of the applicant. "i want to get into a top 10 school" blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is if you want to practice medicine it really doesn't matter where you go to school. med school is not like law school so "tiers" make less of a difference in terms of determining where you will ultimately practice. my point is that adcoms need to take into consideration the needs of the POPULATION AT LARGE. what kind of physicians will be needed in the future? do you realize that when you are practicing that a huge portion of the population (baby-boomers) will be reaching or at retirement. this equals a lot of old people. how many ob/gyns will we need as opposed to heart surgeons as opposed to primary care, etc. these are all factors adcoms need to consider when choosing the incoming class. it's not all about the APPLICANT'S NEEDS (ie, ego, ie, "i have to go to a top 10 school and will be bitter at those who get in over me" mentality).

that being said, we DO need diversity in physicians. sure all us SDNers have never been accused of being racist , but the fact of the matter is that there are people within the general population who will prefer a physicians who is maybe of the same ethnicity as them. when you are dealing with life and death issues, telling people how to improve the quality of life, you are not only scientist but also someone who needs to have somewhat of a personal connection with the patient. and i hate to break it to y'all there are people out there who are racist/sexist and will not go trust certain physicians because they are male/female, white/black/brown/yellow. this all boils down to the fact that physicians need to represent ALL different backgrounds--its about the needs of OTHER people, not just you, the applicant.

and it's ADMISSIONS, not BOARD CERTIFICATION that takes race into account so, no, i don't think that AA will result in unqualified physicians flooding the medical field.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

If blacks are scared of white doctors because of Tuskegee, they must be terrified of black nurses.

Anyway, read about Tuskegee and you'll see why blacks distrust white doctors! Read about the lynchings in 1950's South and you'll see why blacks distrust white southerners! Read about the enslavement of blacks in the 1800's and you'll see why blacks distrust whites!
Of course, don't read about the white doctors who helped blacks. Don't read about the white southerners who supported the civil rights movement. And don't read about how whites in this country are trying to help blacks.
The white man is evil!


How do you live with so much hatred and disgust?

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by scifi
i used to have mixed feelings about AA. i thought it was necessary to have it in order to promote minorities in fields which they are not typically represented. then i thought it was unfair that it excludes certain minorities becase of statistics at college campuses, etc.

when it comes down to it, though, i think that direct efforts at diversification are needed in medicine more so than in any other field. forget "my difficult life experiences" or "i grew up in a poor family". all this whining is focused on the needs of the applicant. "i want to get into a top 10 school" blah blah blah. the fact of the matter is if you want to practice medicine it really doesn't matter where you go to school. med school is not like law school so "tiers" make less of a difference in terms of determining where you will ultimately practice. my point is that adcoms need to take into consideration the needs of the POPULATION AT LARGE. what kind of physicians will be needed in the future? do you realize that when you are practicing that a huge portion of the population (baby-boomers) will be reaching or at retirement. this equals a lot of old people. how many ob/gyns will we need as opposed to heart surgeons as opposed to primary care, etc. these are all factors adcoms need to consider when choosing the incoming class. it's not all about the APPLICANT'S NEEDS (ie, ego, ie, "i have to go to a top 10 school and will be bitter at those who get in over me" mentality).

that being said, we DO need diversity in physicians. sure all us SDNers have never been accused of being racist , but the fact of the matter is that there are people within the general population who will prefer a physicians who is maybe of the same ethnicity as them. when you are dealing with life and death issues, telling people how to improve the quality of life, you are not only scientist but also someone who needs to have somewhat of a personal connection with the patient. and i hate to break it to y'all there are people out there who are racist/sexist and will not go trust certain physicians because they are male/female, white/black/brown/yellow. this all boils down to the fact that physicians need to represent ALL different backgrounds--its about the needs of OTHER people, not just you, the applicant.

and it's ADMISSIONS, not BOARD CERTIFICATION that takes race into account so, no, i don't think that AA will result in unqualified physicians flooding the medical field.

very---very well said. While I'm not particularly for or against affirmative action you presented some excellent points on why AA is still needed.

**Ryo:

I completely see your point as well. But you certainly didn?t get that across to me through your sarcasm. It is totally condescending and disrespectful to address your point of view through such language. Nobody on this board needs to be talked down to because they do not agree with you.
I see your viewpoint on how this can be unfair. But is there really a fair system? You say basing admissions on socio economic factors. I have a few problems with this.

Do you realize that based on shear numbers in the population, there are still more poor whites than all minorities (rich and poor) combined?

I don?t think this system would work either and representation of the population would be flushed out.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I don't agree with SES AA, but that's a whole other story.

Yes, Urkel, I just get a tad peeved when people try to blame the very victims of Affirmative Action (they are only borderline students, they should have studied more!).

I ask you, Urkel, should we be judged first upon our achievements, or should our achievements be considered only after our race?
It is a bastardization of the 14th amendment. Just like the <b>separate but equal</b> movement after the Plessy case. Aren't we all glad those justices ruled the way they did? And just like that supreme court decision, Bakke has spawned the equally disgusting <b>equal but separate</b> movement. Look where we are now after 30 years of Affirmative Action. The average rich black pre-med can't compete academically with the average poor white pre-med. Do you find this a tad disturbing? I do. I think we should look for better alternatives...preferably ones that do not violate constitutional amendments, don?t you?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Christ, look at the topic of this thread, slik.
Are you saying rich blacks are doing better on the MCAT then poor whites?

I'm angry because people's civil rights are being violated. I'm angry because this country will never overcome this white/black crap as long as there are people who engage in racial spoils and identity politics.

 

[An Yong]

Well Said LJoo83.

Originally posted by LJoo83
Before I begin my two cents, I want to establish some credibility. I am Asian and I grew up with two Korean immigrants so there was much social and cultural barriers between myself and many of my white counterparts. That being said...

I do believe that this brief had some valid points. I understand how there is much hesitancy for the URM to seek medical advice from Caucasians when in comparison to someone of their own race because a few times when they needed to, my parents did NOT seek the advice of a health care professional. They never explicitly said why, but I think a good part of it is due to the reasoning of language barriers (my parents still struggle with English).

However, common sense would tell me that if my health was knowingly in jeopardy and I knew I needed a professional opinion, I honestly would not care if the physician is Hispanic or Caucasian. Why? Because I trust in the standard and discernment of the ADCOM of whichever med school allows that student to be admitted into their med school. I trust in the system to make the best decision and keep the future patients of this M.D. in mind while they formulate what kind of a physician this hopeful will be.

I don't neccessarily agree with their argument that the URM will serve the underserved areas; I really do believe it depends on the heart of that person. Hopefully the aforesaid mentioned ADCOM will make the wisest decision on choosing the physician who is not in this hellish road to med school for money but because he/she truly does have a desire to help people and is morally sound to have the capacity to sacrfice money for the sake of helping someone in need. I don't believe that race determines how much of a miser you are or aren't; a Caucasian physican can be more truly interested in serving the underserved area while an African physican can only be on this process to make money.

I do agree however that there is much hesitancy for the URM to apply for the med school process; there is a societal stigma between certain races and their intelligence (or lack thereof). While this is more of an abstract ideal it is still a mental obstacle that can keep a person with excellent potential to be an amazing physican but because of this stigma, I don't believe we'll ever find out.

I think the idea of AA and of this board is like putting a band-aid on a deep knife wound. It seems as though they are wanting to piece together only the surface of the problem but not going to the source of it. There is the undeniable fact that in our public education system the difference of the overal quality between a wealthier neighboorhood (e.g. majority being Caucasian) and a lower income neighboorhood (e.g. URM). So, why not start there? Why not provide comparable educational, recreational, and other opporunities the same for the both schools at the opposite ends of the spectrum? Maybe it's due to naivete but I believe this would not only greatly reduce (not neccessarily eliminate) the educational schisms between the differing groups but this would allow the admissions playing field to be even more leveled....and hopefully diminish the need for programs such as AA.

 

[LUBDUBB]

The reality is:

Some white folks are apprehensive about seeing a black doctor (if you don't believe me, go read "Gifted Hands" by Dr. Ben Carson.)

Similarly, I'm sure African Americans (or other minorities) would be more confortable seeing a doctor who understands the values and problems of a community.
Especially given what African Americans endured at the hand of the "white man", I wouldn't see a Caucasian doctor either were I African American. You may see that as ignorant, but people don't forget their history.

AA is about acknowledging the problems of our society.

Without AA, minorities would become heavily underrepresented.
AA is about leveling the playing field. There is still is a great deal of racism that minorities have to face in this country. Even if they make 80k a year, ignorant people will still see them as inferior and treat them unfairly.

~Lubdubb

P.S. I'm not naming names, but after reading this thread, some of you are big fat bigots.

 

[AlternateSome1]

Just a thought...

In medicine, it is important to treat the cause of a symptom rather than the symptom itself. It would be rediculous to give a person painkiller to reduce leg pains caused by a broken bone and then act like you have treated the patient. In admitting students with below-average scores, isn't the symptom being treated rather than the cause? If there is an argument about URM's lacking the opportunities that non-URMS have, wouldn't it be more reasonable to create college programs to offer those opportunities rather than to reduce the standards of achievement? Feel free to tear me apart...I don't mind.

~AS1~

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, AA is about leveling the playing field. Because, god knows, those kids from $80K households can't compete with those kids from $30K households.


There is no one standing in front of the schoolhouse door. There is no racism that can keep you from opening a book and studying. As long people use the "great deal of racism that minorities have to face in this country" as copout excuse, minorities will never even venture on the level playing field that has been created.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

God, slik, did you even read the first three replies of this post? I think we have firmly established rich URMs are doing worse on the MCAT then poor non-URMs.

 

[LUBDUBB]

Originally posted by AlternateSome1
Just a thought...

In medicine, it is important to treat the cause of a symptom rather than the symptom itself. It would be rediculous to give a person painkiller to reduce leg pains caused by a broken bone and then act like you have treated the patient. In admitting students with below-average scores, isn't the symptom being treated rather than the cause?
~AS1~

Unfortunately, ridding our society of racism is much more complicated that fixing broken bones.

Rhyonik(sp?) - maybe someone can level your playing field so you wouldn't be so bitter about "losing" your spot to a URM.


~lubdubb

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

AlternateSome1, good point. However, the cure is a very bitter pill to swallow. People are just unwilling to take it.

Here's a bitter pill to swallow. There is absolutely no reason in hell the average rich URM should be scoring <b>significantly</b> lower on the MCAT then the average poor non-URM. It is not a lack of academic resources, it is not the amount of racism in this country, it is a lack of personal responsibility. It is the culture that equates academic achievement with "acting white". It is the culture of victimization. Instead of feeding these monster cultures with AA, we should be trying to destroy them.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

So, Lub, you think everyone who is against AA are either "big fat bigots" or "bitter about "losing" spots to a URM"?
Interesting. Not very unique. But interesting nonetheless.

 

[paramed2premed]

I offered a different perspective on the last page, but it was ignored. I don't feel slighted (sniff, sniff...), but it would be valuable to add it to a stale discussion. (By the way, I'm the ORM who didn't get in to my "legacy" school.) Unfortunately, the only way to get any attention on this thread is to get personal, so here goes.

Ryo, are you getting any lately? I thought not.

Ok, now that I have your attention; the US armed forces contributed an opinion to the Supreme Court in the recent AA case. The Army et.al. is not known for being big liberals, but they say that AA is essential to their mission. They fear that discipline will suffer if their is a huge racial disparity between the enlisted soldiers and the officers.

They do not worry that black officers might be perceived as less qualified.

They are not concerned that otherwise-qualified white soldiers will be denied an opportunity.

They are concerned with creating an effective organization.

What do folks think? Relevant to med school admissions? Not?

 

[gizzdogg]

Originally posted by paramed2premed
I offered a different perspective on the last page, but it was ignored. I don't feel slighted (sniff, sniff...), but it would be valuable to add it to a stale discussion. (By the way, I'm the ORM who didn't get in to my "legacy" school.) Unfortunately, the only way to get any attention on this thread is to get personal, so here goes.

Ryo, are you getting any lately? I thought not.

Ok, now that I have your attention; the US armed forces contributed an opinion to the Supreme Court in the recent AA case. The Army et.al. is not known for being big liberals, but they say that AA is essential to their mission. They fear that discipline will suffer if their is a huge racial disparity between the enlisted soldiers and the officers.

They do not worry that black officers might be perceived as less qualified.

They are not concerned that otherwise-qualified white soldiers will be denied an opportunity.

They are concerned with creating an effective organization.

What do folks think? Relevant to med school admissions? Not?

I can't believe I'm posting on an AA thread, but here it goes....


Paramed2Premed,

Your post is very worthwhile as it does bring a fresh perspective to the debate. Don't let Ryo get to you too much. Actually, he is much more rational than some past AA debaters.

On the surface, the military analogy may appear similar, but one must ask if there are any differences between the two situations. In the military unity is of utmost importance. Of course in medicine the need for quality patient care trumps the need for unity (if there even is such a need for unity). Obviously, the military higher-ups feel more unity and less civil rights is a necessary trade-off and that this situation is relevant to the AA debate. In the past for matters of national security (this obviously is related to N.S.), the courts have often made exceptions to some laws (e.g. military tribunals).

In a very similar sense, this is the matter before the Supreme Court: does diversity at the university level constitute a sufficient state interest to allow for another exceptional case of discrimination. So I think the military comparison is relevant, but not completely analogous because the trade-offs (or "benefits" of discrimination) are very very different. And I don't believe the comparison will do much to pacify the participants in this ongoing heated debate.


Just my take. Yall, be kind with the flaming.

 

[paramed2premed]

Let me summarize how I view the relevance of my analogy.

The military wants to ensure that its orders be delivered by officers, and acted on by enlisted personel. The enlisted soldiers may not be responsive to orders delivered by a racially-homogenous officer corps. The military lost the trust of the enlisted men in Vietnam, and has no wish to endure similar problems with discipline.

The medical establishment wants to ensure that medical care is delivered by physicians, and that minority patients will use that care. The minority patient population may not be responsive to care offered by a racially-homogenous medical system. The medical establishment lost the trust of minorities because of incidents such as Tuskegee, and has no wish to endure similar problems with trust.

The basic point is that the needs of society (military effectiveness or public health) may indeed outweigh the 'rights' of the individual. Indeed, a noncompliant TB patient may be confined if they are judged to be threat to public health, despite any constitutional objections.

Ryo, I hope you realize that my comments about your sexual successes were only intended to draw attention to my post, and not to insult. I am sure that you possess prowess beyond belief.

 

[geldrop]

I know several spanish and black people that won't see an URM for a physician because they know how AA works firsthand. So even minorities themselves at least several I know won't even go to URM becuase they know how AA works.

 

[Corn-Trollio]

maybe the real problem is a lot of blacks have smaller brains.
how else do you explain that poor white trailor trash beats affluent blacks on MCAT, and on USMLE?

unfortunately this creates a problem for the higher functioning blacks that get lumped into the "idiot that got into medical school because of AA" I feel sorry for them but the only way to change that is to eliminate the lower standards. that way blacks in medical school that are there will be recognized as deserving their spot instead of the question that EVERY person they work with will have: "Is this one of the dumb ones here to add to diversity"?


watch out for the mexicans. they are smarter and growing in numbers ( now outnumbering the blacks)

pretty soon they will take all of the black people's free places in medical school.

at that time, the blacks will cry foul.
diversity is great as long as you are on the sunny end of the deal.
it's already happening. they resent the mexicans cutting into their quotas.

since URM's are prolific breeders, eventually the whites will be in a minority.
then look out: AA will die out.

Funny how asians aren't minorities.
guess the way out of minority status is to study, Huh?

that must piss off the blacks who have been in America for hundreds of years and speak English ( a modified form anyway)
then here comes some Asian smuggled into America in the sewage hold of some cargo ship. No money. No English skills. NOTHING

AND IN ONE GENERATION THEIR KIDS ARE AT MIT...while the blacks are still struggling to pass the minimum entrance standards to college, so they can qualify for their race based carrot.
yeah, I'd be mad at the asians and mexicans too if they were out hustling me!

 

[fang]

Sci-fi and paramed-2-premed, this is a really useful insight:

AA balances the rights of an individual applicant to pursue a particular degree with the rights of minority groups to have doctors from their own communities.

Isn't this the real center of this debate? Those who are against AA seem to challange the individual injustices, while those who are for it bring up the need for boader URM representation for the good of those communities.

I usually side with individual rights, but not in this case. URM physicians are more likely than others to serve in their own communities, and those communities need more access to healthcare right now. Minorities spend less time with their doctor and are treated less often than whites for the same illness (here's an example about children with asthma*).

I don't think doctors do this consciously, but when you have 15 minutes to gain a patient's trust well enough for them to tell you detailed (and maybe embarassing) health problems, maybe it helps when you have the same kind of background.



*Lieu, TA et al. "Racial/ethnic variation in asthma status and management practices among children in managed medicaid." Pediatrics. 2002 May;109(5):857-65

 

[vixenell]

I know several spanish and black people that won't see an URM for a physician because they know how AA works firsthand. So even minorities themselves at least several I know won't even go to URM becuase they know how AA works.

Perhaps thats just ignorance. THE EXISTENCE OF AA DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY MINORITY ADMITTED TO MEDICAL SCHOOL WAS UNDERQUALIFIED. Perhaps if we mandated a huge red "AA" tatoo on those who did. Or maybe every doctor should carry around a badge stating their high school and undergraduate GPA, and standardized test scores. Would that solve the problem? Thats not a form of discrimination, right?

Regardless of the means that allowed someone to gain admission into medical school, what they do after admission is what matters. Before Ryo brings up Chavis again, thats an exceptional case, probably a handful out of thousands. And I'm sure there's evidence of thousands more statistically "qualified" ORM applicants who went on to perform atrocities in their own right. Chavis is about as representative of the black medical community as Britney Spears is to musical talent.

 

[Loki]

Problem:
-I am white
-I am male
-I grew up poor (my mother's best year was $18,000 as a telemarketer
-I attended ~20 school including 3 high schools
-I was raised by a single mom
-I graduated last in my high school class
-At one of my high schools in Calif, I could not pass the minimum math skills exam required for graduation (I passed in another state with lower standards)
-I worked full time from the age of 13
-I stood in the grocery store line and experienced the "not enough money put stuff back" episode again and again
-My mom worked 60+ hours a week for her meager earnings (no education)
-We used food stamps many times
-I got more than my share of hunger
-I washed my clothes in the tub (yes in the trailer) as there was no washing machine and dryer and no quarters for the laundrymat

Solution:
-I joined the military the day I turned 18
-I received basic academic and life skill instruction from the Air Force
-I learned how to study in a system where I was fed and clothed
-I aquired a grip on basic math
-I spent the next 10 years working my way up the rank structure
-I eventually won many medals and decorations for technical contributions to effective air war (my engineering systems are used to drop GPS weapons such as the JDAM)
-I won soldier of the year (airman of the year) honors
-I *started* college at 28 when I felt I could deal with the academics.
-By the time I started college, I had no tution assistance from the Air Force as these programs are designed for recruts not vetrans (I did not get the GI Bill) so I paid for the whole thing out of my pocket
-I worked 60+ hours during the six years that I attened college (it took six years because I doubled in Computer Science and Biology)
-I slept an average of two hours a night (working third shift and full time academic work) during those six years. My schedule intesified drastically after 9-11
-I finally beat my math problems by finishing my computer science requirments (up to Calc III no diffy Q...I took linear Alg instead)
-I graduated with Highest honors (3.9 somthing GPA)
-I took the MCAT once and scored way above average

Medical School
-In my first year
-Have a URM in my class from the same high school I graduated from (****ty school with low standards in the hood)
-Few people have gone on to attend professional schools from my high school. its rare
-The URM did not take the military route
-I am in the top 1/2 of the class (perhaps top 1/3), not great but I am happy


Summary:
-The military is the greatest social program in the world
-The GI bill (although I never saw it) has educated thousands and has contributed to the GDP of our country
-You must work and learn in the military system
-You are treated fairly within the military system
-AA in the military exists and hurts minority soldiers (special consideration for promotion and awards)

There is always a way to "find your way out" in our country without AA.

If we support AA, our country becomes a handout nation in which its members dishonor those who came before with mediocrity.

 

[LUBDUBB]

Originally posted by geldrop
I know several spanish and black people that won't see an URM for a physician because they know how AA works firsthand. So even minorities themselves at least several I know won't even go to URM becuase they know how AA works.

The implication in your post is that those who benefit from AA are less qualified physicians. Does it follow that if people are admitted with slightly lower gpa/mcat, that they make underqualified doctors? Of course not! Those who graduate from Harvard aren't necessarily better doctors than those who graduate from Howard.

~Lubdubb

Originally posted by Corn-Trollio
maybe the real problem is a lot of blacks have smaller brains.
how else do you explain that poor white trailor trash beats affluent blacks on MCAT, and on USMLE?
...

watch out for the mexicans. they are smarter and growing in numbers ( now outnumbering the blacks)

pretty soon they will take all of the black people's free places in medical school.
...

since URM's are prolific breeders, eventually the whites will be in a minority.
then look out: AA will die out...

that must piss off the blacks who have been in America for hundreds of years and speak English ( a modified form anyway)
then here comes some Asian smuggled into America in the sewage hold of some cargo ship. No money. No English skills. NOTHING

AND IN ONE GENERATION THEIR KIDS ARE AT MIT...while the blacks are still struggling to pass the minimum entrance standards to college, so they can qualify for their race based carrot.
yeah, I'd be mad at the asians and mexicans too if they were out hustling me!

Are you for real?

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
I don't agree with SES AA, but that's a whole other story.

Yes, Urkel, I just get a tad peeved when people try to blame the very victims of Affirmative Action (they are only borderline students, they should have studied more!).

I ask you, Urkel, should we be judged first upon our achievements, or should our achievements be considered only after our race?

I agree, there is no good solution to any of this.

The current system does cheat out good students that are not URM. But if we change the system, we would see URM representation down and that has many consequences (they have been addressed by previous posters).

But I have to be honest with you all. A little over 50% of medical school spots are already taken by whites.
URM combined only hold about 14% of all spots. Do you suggest we minimize this?

I do not think however that the reason for accepting an applicant should be on ethnicity. That is silly, and I?m an URM. But I don?t think we necessarily should dissolve the system either. What do you all think?

This is very difficult because no matter what you do, someone is hurt by the process. I don?t think its fair for any URM to say that they should receive preferential treatment in the process because they have ?suffered more? than anyone else. Many non-urm have suffered just as much if not more.

The reason there is AA is because there is a shortage of URM physicians.

 

[HouseHead]

Digging way back in this thread...

Originally posted by Lab-Rat21
Say you are right? We slowly end up with a VERY large number of white doctors, they score the high 30s MCATs and have the higher GPAs...then these doctors make more money than minorities in other professions. They can provide more for their kids (i.e. tutoring, MCAT prep, good private school education, housing....etc.)

This now results in these kids having more opprtunities than minority kids; they then become the majority of doctors like their parents and the cycle goes on and on...

I don't see AA as giving someone a free ride, but as taking them out of this cycle; CHANGING the order of what is really going on.

Regardless of the profession of the parents, the difference in scores between >$80k URM families and <$30k ORM families negates some of this argument.
On the personal level, I'd like to say that I was a welfare child. It was scholarships from 7th grade on that allowed me the private school education that I received, not rich parents. It was a scholarship that sent me to college. And it was my BLACK fiance that helped me go to an MCAT prep course, not my white parents.
The problem with looking at statistics is that they ignore PEOPLE. By the argument of the "cycle", I have no place in it. I am white (minus a tiny smidge of Native American), but my children will be, according to society, BLACK. Where do they stand? Don't get me wrong, I will encourage them to use every advantage to get them the best education possible- be that legacy at my high school, legacy at my college, or URM in medical school (should they so choose), but that doesn't mean I agree with the existence of such things. It's simply that they will be at a DISADVANTAGE if they don't pursue such opportunities, and that's not right either.

Originally posted by Lab-Rat21
Again, for every $1 a Caucasian man has, an African-American has 11cents and a Latino 9cents...Ignoring that THIS stat is very telling and needs to change is very ignorant.

I totally disagree. From what I've seen of such statistics in the past, this is an average. Remember, there are over 10,000 BILLIONAIRES in the U.S., and most of them are probably white. So to compute in these people on the high end totally skews the numbers. I think it would be much more appropriate use medians.
Personal example: $40k as a h.s. teacher vs. $85k as an IT director. One is a 56 y.o. white male, the other is a 33 y.o. black male. If you assumed that the one with the higher salary is the white one, you'd be wrong.

The problem with many of these statistics is that they don't solve the problem of WHY many URM are achieving at lower levels than ORM from similar or worse socioeconomic backgrounds. From my experience, it is generally related to an education ethic. Flame me if you will, but that's my experience. But again, these generalizations neglect the PERSON- you know, the one that is actually going to school, or going to be practicing medicine. The GPA/MCAT stats are supposedly to weed out those that probably won't be able to hang with the intensity of the med school curriculum, or won't be able to pass the boards. Beyond that, the ECs, LORs, and essay are all supposedly so that adcoms can get a glimpse of the QUALITY OF YOUR CHARACTER. Medicine brings science and compassion together, and it seems appropriate to me that those chosen to study medicine be those with the greatest abilities in both.

I will again mention my solution for the two major factors mentioned by the AAMC regarding AA:
1) Providing access to care for underserved patients. From what I understand, this is first and foremost. My solution: Show a race-blind preference for applicants that grew up in/live in underserved areas. Why? Because EVERYONE is more likely to return to where they came from. Also, encourage more participation in scholarship programs that have commitments to serve in underserved area, or pay-back programs similar to those for other health professions.
2) Equalizing access to education. This should be purely socioeconomic. The arguments about slavery don't apply to most URM hispanics, nor do the arguments about language apply to blacks (indeed, many Asian ORMs are 1st or 2nd generation and had even more problems with language than many hispanics do). There certainly are huge disparities in the funding of public education in different areas. But just because a very poorly funded school system is PREDOMINANTLY attended by URM children, this does not mean that many ORM kids aren't subjected to the same inadequacies. My solution: Race-blind consideration of disadvantaged status. There is a section for disadvantaged consideration on the AMCAS; I think it should be explanded and replace the ethnicity/race category. The essay is also a good place to see what battles applicants have had to fight, and would allow such consideration on a personal level. Also, increased funding for k-12 schooling. But that's not something that medical schools have much of a hand in, and my guess is that with this administration being what it is, things are going to continue getting worse.

Okay, enough for now.

 

[MyEyesMesmerize]

These AA threads make my sick. I have been on SDN for about a year and the same repetitive arguments are made, including some of the most immature and irrelevant responses I can imagine. For both those pro and against AA, know that it isn't a perfect system. Those of you who bash a URM with a 23 MCAT and a 3.2 GPA because a non-URM with a 31 MCAT and 3.7 GPA didn't get their opportunity, are so full of it. The URM is not necessarily "underqualified" to become a doctor. You know nothing else about their application or their background. Until you can put everything out on the table and analyze it, then you shouldn't even bother making an opinion on that person. Just shutup!

Lastly, I want to say to those out there that believe Socioeconomic status should be taken into account as opposed to race, that you have no understanding of what it is to "live" as a minority, whether you are rich or poor. I do believe that SES should play a factor, but to think that racism does not continue to exist is naive. As a minority, one is already given a label of underachiever, regardless of your accomplishments. People look at you differently, you are made to feel uncomfortable, and you are sterotyped because of your racial background. Again, I know this isn't a perfect system, but until you can walk in my and other minorities shoes, and see things through our eyes, stop complaining on SDN and go hit the books, because I'm one step ahead of you. And no, I'm not a URM but I am hispanic. Now I would hope some of you would quit your whining and keep trying yo become a doctor. If you deserve it, you will get in, I did.

 

[geldrop]

I though that post about the boat load of illegal chinese is pretty funny. Seems so true, never really thought of it that way. I guess we gotta just make URM parents stress education more?? Or perhaps we should encourage massive interracial breeding this way everyone is the same race just a big mix like this fruit shake i am eating right now can't tell if there is a strawberry or protein or what.

 

[pillowhead]

Originally posted by medicine2006
Read about the Tuskegee Syphylis experiments done on black people and maybe you'll understand why blacks might be affraid white doctors will do bad things to them. Until then you'll never understand!

Does this mean that I as a Jewish female should never trust a Dr. Von Neuman or Dr. Weis or any other doctor with a German name because of atrocious medical experiments performed on Jews by some German doctors? I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. Yes, the Tuskegee experiments were an absolutely horrible episode, but that really doesn't give all black people the right to distrust all white doctors. Besides, there were black nurses involved in the Tuskegee experiments who knew what was going on, so your argument still doesn't hold. The bottom line is there are evil people of all colors and of both genders...you can't live life distrusting people because of an incident that happened decades ago. That doesn't mean that the incident should be forgotten or downplayed, but our actions should reflect the enivronment we live in, not the environment our ancestors lived.

 

[agent]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
http://www.aamc.org/diversity/amicusbrief.pdf


page 24


I was pretty shocked when I read it too. It's interesting the AAMC exposed this data. It goes against Bok and Bowen's prescribed AA stragety of lying to the public.

amazing.. and disgusting at the same time

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by pillowhead
Yes, the Tuskegee experiments were an absolutely horrible episode, but that really doesn't give all black people the right to distrust all white doctors.

hahahaha...okay, I'm trying to stay out of these discussions this go round, but I really have to say something about this. There is no right to be earned to be able to distrust someone. It's about people's feelings and perceptions. There's no de facto right that all physicians have to be trusted! The trust must be earned.

Nevertheless, I get your point. I just had to point out that interesting syntax!

 

[CJLaw]

Originally posted by fang
Sci-fi and paramed-2-premed, this is a really useful insight:

AA balances the rights of an individual applicant to pursue a particular degree with the rights of minority groups to have doctors from their own communities.

Isn't this the real center of this debate? Those who are against AA seem to challange the individual injustices, while those who are for it bring up the need for boader URM representation for the good of those communities.

I usually side with individual rights, but not in this case. URM physicians are more likely than others to serve in their own communities, and those communities need more access to healthcare right now. Minorities spend less time with their doctor and are treated less often than whites for the same illness

Well at least you freely admit that you advocate violating a citizen's constitutionally protected rights in order to achieve a greater good. However, I say don't stop there, let's

allow the government to quell anti-war protests and silence anti-war advocates, because a dissenting view causes disharmony in a nation (violation of 1st Amendment)

allow police to search anyone they view as suspicious with no probable cause, because it would deter criminals from ever venturing outside their home (violation of 4th Amendment)

allow prosecutors to retry acquitted criminals, because as we've seen with OJ Simpson sometimes they get it wrong (violation of 5th Amendment)

close all churches, because the relgious zealots in this country are a major pain in the neck always preaching morality and such (violation of 1st Amendment)

don't you realize how dumb your quote really sounds?

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by CJ2Doc
Well at least you freely admit that you advocate violating a citizen's constitutionally protected rights in order to achieve a greater good. However, I say don't stop there, let's

allow the government to quell anti-war protests and silence anti-war advocates, because a dissenting view causes disharmony in a nation (violation of 1st Amendment)

allow police to search anyone they view as suspicious with no probable cause, because it would deter criminals from ever venturing outside their home (violation of 4th Amendment)

allow prosecutors to retry acquitted criminals, because as we've seen with OJ Simpson sometimes they get it wrong (violation of 5th Amendment)

close all churches, because the relgious zealots in this country are a major pain in the neck always preaching morality and such (violation of 1st Amendment)

don't you realize how dumb your quote really sounds?

A lot of those constitutional violations ARE in the Patriot Act or Patriot II, which many Republicans want to make permanent by removing the sunset clause.

 

[ORnurse]

It's amazing to see all of the hate and racism that is displayed in the posts, whenever the subject of Affirmative Action is brought up. If the ideas of the individual post-ers are representative of the majority of the non URM's here on SDN, and throughout the country, then we are in indeed in a sad predicament.

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by ORnurse
It's amazing to see all of the hate and racism that is displayed in the posts, whenever the subject of Affirmative Action is brought up. If the ideas of the individual post-ers are representative of the majority of the non URM's here on SDN, and throughout the country, then we are in indeed in a sad predicament.

I agree, this hatred is not even justified. How much has AA negatively affected you? Most people think it prevents them from getting into med school, but the truth is AA is probably the least likely reason for anyone to get rejected from med school, there are not even that many URMs getting accepted, period.

Also, did i miss something here? how does AA deny a person's constitutional right? Does a school not have the right to seek a diverse class? If they can admit, for example, a former Opera singer or the former Miss America with mediocre scores into their med school class just to add uniqueness and diversity to the class, why can't they do this with minorities? Oh i forgot, when it comes to URMs, eveyone thinks they are beng discriminated against.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, damn those racists who believe we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race in the admissions process!

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yeah, I don't see how giving 20 admissions points to all blacks would violate any civil rights laws.


<b> No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. </b>


Hey, do you suppose if we gave 40 admissions points to all whites...would that violate some sort of civil rights law?

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Yeah, I don't see how giving 20 admissions points to all blacks would violate any civil rights laws.

<b> No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. </b>

Hey, do you suppose if we gave 40 admissions points to all whites...would that violate some sort of civil rights law?

I guess people who got rejected in favor of more well-rounded applicants can claim that they were discriminated against, on the basis of life experiences. Open up your eyes.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

If we use "life experience" as a criteria for admissions, then yes, we are discriminating on the basis of "life experience".
And if we use "race" as a criteria for admissions, then yes, we are discriminating on the basis of "race".

"Life experience" as a criteria does not violate civil rights (although, you might want to do a better job of defining what exactly life experience is).
"Race" as a criteria, however, does violate civil rights.

So, use "life experience" (whatever the hell that is). Don't use race.

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
If we use "life experience" as a criteria for admissions, then yes, we are discriminating on the basis of "life experience".
And if we use "race" as a criteria for admissions, then yes, we are discriminating on the basis of "race".

"Life experience" as a criteria does not violate civil rights (although, you might want to do a better job of defining what exactly life experience is).
"Race" as a criteria, however, does violate civil rights.

So, use "life experience" (whatever the hell that is). Don't use race.

Unique Life experiences=anything the adcoms would care to hear about, that makes you stand out .e.g unique volunteer experience of unique travel experience.

IMHO-----> A truly diverse class=a class that is diverse in many different ways, including racially. And if i may say, especially racially. Preventing an adcom from achieving this would be against their right to admit who they want, so as to have the kind of representation they want in their class.

I see you are trying to understand my point, it really isn't that unclear. They want diversity, they look for it, they get it. In the long run, everyone benefits.

 

[Street Philosopher]

what if the adcom only wanted white males? is that ok too?

 

[Moskeeto]

A doctor and a nurse were called to the scene of an accident.

Doctor: We need to get these people to a hospital now!

Nurse: What is it?

Doctor: It's a big building with a lot of doctors, but that's not important right now!

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
what if the adcom only wanted white males? is that ok too?

What would be their goal? To go back to the 19th century?? Just wondering.

 

[Street Philosopher]

why is the goal relevant?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Yes, they want racial diversity. So they discriminate on the basis of race to acheive their goal of racial diversity.

Does that violate a law that says a program can not discriminate on the basis of race? You tell me.


Well, let's see the <b>benefits</b> of 30 years of Affirmative Action. The average <b>rich URM</b> is performing worse academically then the average <b>poor non-URM</b>. I find this to be a very disturbing "benefit", wouldn?t you agree?

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

Cool, the big monkey sniffing the little monkey icon is back!

(And there was much rejoicing)

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
Well, let's see the <b>benefits</b> of 30 years of Affirmative Action. The average rich URM is performing worse academically then average poor non-URM. I find that a very disturbing "benefit", wouldn?t you agree?

I would love to see any references you have that back your statement. The fact that you said "average" suggests that you are talking about a large scale and not just some individual that you know or something like that. Again, i would love to see that.

 

[Ryo-Ohki]

I don't know. Perhaps read the first three replies of this post?

Honestly, did you even read the original post? Come on, you can tell me.

 

[Nefertari]

Originally posted by Moskeeto
A doctor and a nurse were called to the scene of an accident.

Doctor: We need to get these people to a hospital now!

Nurse: What is it?

Doctor: It's a big building with a lot of doctors, but that's not important right now!

Moskeeto,

That is a bad joke! But you're cute for trying to break up the back & forth.

 

[bennet]

Originally posted by Street Philosopher
why is the goal relevant?

Well i asked cos in my post i said adcoms seek a class of students that are diverse in different ways, including racially. Hence diversity is the goal, and the means of achieving it is lokking at students that provide it .i.e. students that stand out racially, academically and in other areas, including volunteer experiences and such. I support this cause i find this to ba a noble and beneficial goal. You asked if it was ok to have a class filled with white males, what would be the goal. Could anything good possibly come out of this, in terms of benefitting the society? Maybe if you answered my question, the answer to yours would be more evident.