Schools Who Love URM?
Started by sxogriff820
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
I'm not Asian, not fighting for my spot here haha
Yes Asians do bring diversity, as do Caucasian people, but we have enough of "Asian diversity" in med schools. And this is coming from me, an Asian who used to use "Asian heritage" as the theme of every diversity essay I've ever written until I found out that everyone else wrote about that as well.
Diversity is important because we need a diverse medical field of physicians with different backgrounds to reflect the population, since the population itself is very diverse.
Because such a reason does not exist. By being different races, things are already inherently not equal. As an Asian American, if I commit the same crime in the same location as an African American, I am significantly less likely to be convicted for it. By changing the race in your hypothetical, things are no longer equal.
It's like giving a penguin and a monkey a standardized "tree climbing contest" and saying that, if all else held equal, there's no reason why the penguin should be given a head start as that would be unfair to the monkey. Yes, okay it's technically unfair to the monkey, but the whole premise is just ridiculous to begin with.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'll make this simple and hopefully bring back some relevancy to this thread by referring to myself in the following:
As an Asian applicant, I am not entitled to get into medical school just because I have a higher MCAT and GPA than another URM applicant. The fact that I do well (better) in school does not mean I deserve to be a doctor more than someone else. The admissions committees' sole job is to provide the best possible class of future physicians. If that means diversifying the racial composition of the class to reflect the population which the class is going to serve, so be it.
A medical school acceptance isn't a reward for my being smart or doing well in school or being involved; it is a privilege given to me, if I am deserving, to serve others. I am glad (relieved) that most (all?) medical schools recognize the fact that certain applicants are in dire need in the medical field and the diversity that they bring is more useful to the medical field than my "4 points higher on the MCAT and .3 point higher GPA".
As an Asian applicant, I am not entitled to get into medical school just because I have a higher MCAT and GPA than another URM applicant. The fact that I do well (better) in school does not mean I deserve to be a doctor more than someone else. The admissions committees' sole job is to provide the best possible class of future physicians. If that means diversifying the racial composition of the class to reflect the population which the class is going to serve, so be it.
A medical school acceptance isn't a reward for my being smart or doing well in school or being involved; it is a privilege given to me, if I am deserving, to serve others. I am glad (relieved) that most (all?) medical schools recognize the fact that certain applicants are in dire need in the medical field and the diversity that they bring is more useful to the medical field than my "4 points higher on the MCAT and .3 point higher GPA".
How do they do on boards? Also do residency place preference for URM?
D
deleted480308
Accurately reflecting racial demographics of the population is not proven to provide better health to anyone
Move to Boston and you will see !!!
No idea but I have read multiple derogatory comments (on SDN) regarding the quality of training at historically black colleges mentioned in this thread.
Lol no
"It is widely recognized within the health professions that diversity is an essential component for promoting excellence in medical education
and accessible, quality health care. Studies have shown that diversity influences education on multiple levels. Students’ assumptions are challenged, perspectives are broadened, and there is greater socialization across a variety of racial and ethnic groups, resulting in demonstrated intellectual and cognitive benefits for all students.1-5 Furthermore, medical students feel their ability to treat individuals from backgrounds different from themselves improves when they are learning in
a heterogeneous environment.6-8 In terms of health care delivery, research indicates that physicians from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds are themselves more likely to treat racial and ethnic minority patients, and more likely to set up practice in typically underserved communities.9-12 Several major national reports also state that
a more diverse health professions workforce is key to eliminating health care disparities.13-15 "
AAMC report on dicersity in physician workforce, read the citations if you are unconvinced.
https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Diversity in the Physician Workforce Facts and Figures 2010.pdf
D
deleted480308
the last time someone posted a meta-analysis paper that said better outcomes were achieved with a more diverse provider population, I read every single study that was referenced (and accessible) in the paper. Those studies that were referenced did not remotely say what the summary paper implied they did. The reference studies showed that no one was denied coverage at all based on race. They also refuted the geographic arguments (but the ORM docs won't work in these neighborhoods) by showing that minority patients often drove past ORM provider offices to be seen byURM docs. The vast majority of the referenced studies that supposedly calculated "better outcomes" were not about better outcomes at all but were actually just patient satisfaction surveys. Of the studies that tracked an actual physical medical outcome/test, half showed no difference whatsoever and most of the studies did not control for things like payment ability/insurance.
I'm not reading through a whole new paper to try and dig through another referenced 15 articles. If you have an actual study, not a summary of something else, feel free to link it.
The large health disparity in america is not about providers not being diverse. It's about the fact that financial resources, the ones needed to pay for expensive American healthcare, are not evenly distributed across race. When you look at any given race and then evaluate within that race for health disparities based on income, you find the exact same thing. Those with less money get a lower quality and quantity of care. No amount of racial discrimination in medical school admissions will fix that.
I don't understand how anybody could place diversity > academic/intellectual ability as far as quality of healthcare provided. I know I'd rather have a surgeon who is better at what he does than one who has overcome racism - that doesn't really affect his ability to cut out that tumor. The only thing adcoms should get prior to interviews is an applicant ID number - introducing information about gender, race, etc only interferes in a meritocratic system.
So should academic ability be the only metric used to determine who will be a great doctor? And I'm guessing you are also saying that mcat/GPA is the best predictor of how good a surgeon you will be? That's what I get from your post. Not going to engage this "wonderful" debate but just want clarification so I can continue eating my popcorn.
Imagine the outrage if denial of coverage based on race was a normal thing. Thankfully this is the 21st century.
And rightfully so. The medical atrocities done on URMs in the past warrant this skepticism. When you go through a lot of racist BS in your life, who is most likely to understand and best sympathize?
Having the best patient satisfaction possible isn't "making healthcare good"? Patients want to be understood. They want to feel safe. Whether or not they actually are or not doesn't matter in this case because of the racist history of this country's medical care.
As I said before, SES isn't the only factor in this case. People who treat it like this aren't looking at the whole picture.
So am I going to be a better doctor than someone with a 3.7 GPA? Do I have greater intellectual ability and academic ability than someone with a 3.83?
Lol the logic. I will be better at fixing tumors because my GPA is 0.1 higher than yours. In my opinion, as long as you pass a certain threshhold, you are capable of being an excellent doctor. Decades ago, the GPA and MCAT average was a lot lower. Are you saying the doctors of today are MUCH better than the doctors of 20 years ago? You're not making any sense.
Also, a COMPETENT doctor who has dealt with racism will be much better at sympathizing with the struggles of someone who has faced racism in the same context than another COMPETENT doctor who has not. Minuscule GPA and MCAT differences does not determine differences in doctor competency.
By your logic, Wash U doctors are better than UCLA doctors who are MUCH better than Florida State and UT medical school doctors...
It is inherently not meritocratic. I don't think you read anything anybody has said. The current system is biased against certain racial minorities and not others. Refer back to my tree climbing analogy.
Literally any thread with URM in the post or the title degenerates into this. Just know that you're going to fare very well with URM status at any US MD school, hands down.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
People here:
Yup, it's inevitable. There's always someone who makes a very caustic and accusatory remark against URMs, no matter the original topic. I think I'm done with this thread's rising URM debate lol. There's no way anybody can convince anyone.
Evidently everything but being a white male brings diversity nowadays. Wealthy white males are pretty much completely boned in the diversity department.
I almost wish I'd completed some secondaries with joke answers... "How can you contribute to the diversity of our school?" "I've dated women from at least 8 countries. That's got to count for something, right? Barriers, I'm breaking them down!"
@Aerus, you can downplay the importance of MCAT/GPA as much as you want, but they are front and center in medical admissions for a reason. Do minor differences predict difference in performance between a couple doctors? No. Does a 5 point gap in MCAT scores of two populations entering into medical education have a lot of significance? Hell yes.
And sure, different races have different experiences - the implied case being that there is greater racism against African Americans than Asians. But I don't think being from Peruvian descent makes you face a lot more racism than being from Vietnamese does, yet there is a similar huge gap in metrics.
Back to your tree - if whether people live or die is based on that tree getting climbed, then yes, its fine to have lots of monkeys. My analogy would be to the UC system, where admissions are not allowed to be race-based, and as a result they have a HUGE Asian population. Are the UCs worse schools because of this? I don't think so.
And sure, different races have different experiences - the implied case being that there is greater racism against African Americans than Asians. But I don't think being from Peruvian descent makes you face a lot more racism than being from Vietnamese does, yet there is a similar huge gap in metrics.
Back to your tree - if whether people live or die is based on that tree getting climbed, then yes, its fine to have lots of monkeys. My analogy would be to the UC system, where admissions are not allowed to be race-based, and as a result they have a HUGE Asian population. Are the UCs worse schools because of this? I don't think so.
There's really no point in replying to you since you choose not to read or understand other people's arguments and, instead, just repeat your already dismissed points. But I'll entertain you, since you are bringing a lot of misconceived points with flawed logic.
I repeat my question: Do you think doctors of today are much better than doctors of 20 years ago. Do you think Wash U have MUCH better doctors than UT?
I never stated, suggested, or even implied this. I recommend you reread what I said. Unless you don't know what you're talking about, in which case you don't need to, since it wouldn't make a difference.
Your logic is flawed again. Having a high GPA and MCAT does not imply that you will be a better doctor than someone else with a lower GPA and MCAT. Being academically capable is NOT what makes a good doctor. It's a requirement to get through training. And since there is no significant graduation rate difference between races, this is a moot point.
You are not entitled to getting into medical school just because you have a higher GPA and MCAT.
I repeat my question: Do you think doctors of today are much better than doctors of 20 years ago. Do you think Wash U have MUCH better doctors than UT?
I never stated, suggested, or even implied this. I recommend you reread what I said. Unless you don't know what you're talking about, in which case you don't need to, since it wouldn't make a difference.
Your logic is flawed again. Having a high GPA and MCAT does not imply that you will be a better doctor than someone else with a lower GPA and MCAT. Being academically capable is NOT what makes a good doctor. It's a requirement to get through training. And since there is no significant graduation rate difference between races, this is a moot point.
You are not entitled to getting into medical school just because you have a higher GPA and MCAT.
I would like to add to @Aerus's excellent points and argue that it is those soft skills - maturity, professionalism, empathy, compassion, motivation, and integrity - that ultimately determine whether one becomes an excellent physician or not, way moreso than academics. Medicine is a service profession and a calling. Having a high GPA and MCAT neither determine one's competence for nor entitle oneself to the privilege of helping others using medicine.
Yes, I do think a lot more is demanded of people getting into MD programs today compared to decades ago, and that the increased competition and requirements has led to more qualified student bodies. The same thing has been seen in selective undergrads. And yes, I also think that the student bodies at places like WashU have performed better on the metrics deemed important by adcoms - whether that leads to better doctors is a question you should direct to them, since something is motivating them to prefer people with top GPAs and MCATs (along with the personal qualities emphasized at all MD programs).
Really?
I've never stated that MCAT and GPA = good doctor. I've repeatedly said that all else being equal (the individual is compassionate, brings diversity, is mature, etc) the fact that a greater demand is placed on Asians on these metrics seems irreconcilable with the meritocracy governing admissions.
And one last point: Undergrad admissions also value diversity, maturity, overcoming adversity, etc, so my UC point stands unadressed: Do you think your school and the other UCs would be better institutions if there were less Asians and more of other minorities?
Really?
Because that sure sounds like a reference to African Americans facing more racism than Asians.
I've never stated that MCAT and GPA = good doctor. I've repeatedly said that all else being equal (the individual is compassionate, brings diversity, is mature, etc) the fact that a greater demand is placed on Asians on these metrics seems irreconcilable with the meritocracy governing admissions.
And one last point: Undergrad admissions also value diversity, maturity, overcoming adversity, etc, so my UC point stands unadressed: Do you think your school and the other UCs would be better institutions if there were less Asians and more of other minorities?
Last edited:
Missing the argument here. Two people who are both mature, empathetic, etc are held to different standards on the metrics of GPA and MCAT based on where their ancestors were born. That's the issue.
The thing about this is, there is no "all else being equal". That's just it. URMs and even females experience a whole heck of a lot more prejudice in general than others. So the fact that they've experienced this makes it not "all equal." Because things have not been equal for my grandparents and even my parents because of racial prejudices and that's what this is all about.
Things are never equal.
So, what exactly about being academically successful makes someone a more "qualified" applicant? You realize that the inflation in GPA/MCAT requirements is due totally to just an increase in the number of applicants. There's nothing mystical or magical about them. They are raw numbers that tell a story about an applicant's work ethic and reasoning skills. Two very important metrics, fundamental in becoming a good physician but that have very little to do with the actual traits that make a good physician. If all you need to succeed academically in the medical world is, say , a 3.0 and a 25 (as studies have shown that below these thresholds students are much more likely (2-3x) as likely to drop out for academic reasons than students above that threshold, and above that threshold there is very little difference in the individual's ability to survive medical school) then what about having higher stats makes you think that an applicant is somehow more deserving of a spot?
I think you view admission as something that you are owed if you are qualified but I don't think that is the case. With anything.
Actually, there is.
Do note that no matter how significant, disparity in test results across racial groups is not sufficient to demonstrate that a test is racially biased.
You're missing the point. Getting into medical school isn't the point. It's who will be doctors. There is absolutely no reason to debate solely on who gets into medical school if we don't care what kind of doctors we will produce.
I was demonstrating that racism is DIFFERENT among even minorities. For example, I can also say that Asian women face hypersexualization significantly more than African American women. Your original point assumed that minorities = equal racism faced.
Things are NOT equal. Seriously, you keep bringing this "all else being equal" bogus when things are NEVER equal and CANNOT be equal if race is different.
Also, I honestly do believe that the UC's could benefit from diversity. If you attend our school, the lack of diversity is a very COMMON complaint among the student body.
Last edited:
My wording was very vague, so let my clarify.
I'm not saying the test itself tests you on things that only a Caucasian would know. However, the metrics in which it tries to measure is biased according to race. The societal conditions which certain minorities face in this country affect the potential in how said minorities will do in environments, like school and standardized tests.
Great explanation of how threshold plays a role in admissions. Have you read Outliers because it is similar to the way Gladwell discussed it.
Absolutely, though I do want to point out (and I'm sure you know 😉 ) that it is possible for a test to itself introduce racial bias without being so direct as testing "things that only a Caucasian would know."
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Why do people keep asking me why MCAT/GPA make good doctors or why higher numbers = more deserving? I have no idea. Ask the adcoms. They are the ones placing major emphasis on these factors, and not in a "threshold" system - the median MCAT scores range along a large gradient with highest at the best known/most selective schools. You want to know why a 36-38 MCAT applicant is better than a 31? Ask WashU. Ask Perelman. Ask Harvard. Do not ask me.
@Aerus, Who gets into medical school is who gets to be a doctor. You'll have to rephrase that first bit, because I don't follow.
Actually, I was assuming there was difference in levels of racism faced, hence I switched to Peruvian vs Vietnamese where I believe there is less of a difference. Then you claimed not to imply AA faced more racism, and I brought up an example you used where AA did face more racism. At least keep your views consistent.
Let's compare Asian vs white instead then, to avoid the "all else being equal" qualifier. I think we can agree whites face the least racism - yet more is demanded of Asians. How is that explained, with your view that more adversity = more value brought outside of numbers? Why are whites getting the adversity benefit relative to Asians?
@Aerus, Who gets into medical school is who gets to be a doctor. You'll have to rephrase that first bit, because I don't follow.
Actually, I was assuming there was difference in levels of racism faced, hence I switched to Peruvian vs Vietnamese where I believe there is less of a difference. Then you claimed not to imply AA faced more racism, and I brought up an example you used where AA did face more racism. At least keep your views consistent.
Let's compare Asian vs white instead then, to avoid the "all else being equal" qualifier. I think we can agree whites face the least racism - yet more is demanded of Asians. How is that explained, with your view that more adversity = more value brought outside of numbers? Why are whites getting the adversity benefit relative to Asians?
Because high scores are another tool used to differentiate between different applicants. If you truly want to get as close to "all things held equal", compare two people of identical gender, SES, race, EC's, and interview skills. THEN, you may say that the one with the higher MCAT and GPA will be picked. However, if you also change the race of one of them, the GPA and MCAT are no longer the sole tools of comparison that are held constant.
@Aerus, Who gets into medical school is who gets to be a doctor. You'll have to rephrase that first bit, because I don't follow.
Actually, I was assuming there was difference in levels of racism faced, hence I switched to Peruvian vs Vietnamese where I believe there is less of a difference. Then you claimed not to imply AA faced more racism, and I brought up an example you used where AA did face more racism. At least keep your views consistent.[/quote]
Just because you misinterpret/misread someone's post does not mean they are not consistent. I have been in countless URM discussions on SDN. I'm not pulling things out of my ass.
They aren't more in demand. Asians are the most accepted group in medical school when you consider population representation. Asians make less than 6% of the US population, yet look at the % of their representation in medical schools and other institutions of higher learning. White people make up the largest % of the country, so if we are trying to represent the population, they would have the largest representation in medical schools.
D
deleted480308
Because the people who are fine with using racial discrimination to benefit URMs are well organized urm groups (far more politically active than asian demographics) and those who have been deceived into thinking that racial discrimination in admissions that they control can somehow counteract the racial discimination in the universe they can't control.
It's a largely an academic universe deception spread through preachy feel good vibes much like global warming was (even as evidence stacked against it). The loudest voices advocating it then throw personal attacks at anyone who dates speak up in an attempt to silence them, like those who scream racist at anyone who questions urm preference (looking at you buffop)
In the end, the asian community is not as politically active on their behalf and so they get abused by the urm system, even more so than the white community does. The idea that we ask about race is insane to anyone who truly seeks fair treatment for all races in admissions
I propose a solution to that problem: N0 race, no GPA, no ECs, no SES, no interviews should be considered for admission to med school... Everyone has to take the same MCAT on the say day... Highest MCAT scores got admitted... Unfortunately, if they don't do it like that, there will always be some kind of unfairness in the process... We are not living in a perfect world here, guys/gals. Just do what you gotta do to have YOUR spot. Don't worry about how the other guy/gal got his/hers...
Last edited:
@Aerus OK, agree to disagree that, all controllable things held constant, whether an applicant is Peruvian or Korean can reasonably offset a 25%+ percentile disparity.
I didn't misinterpret anything. Statement: I never stated or implied that AAs face greater racism. Previous statement: Here is an example of a situation in which AAs face greater racism. Come on, man, I'm not imagining a contradiction.
I didn't say Asians are more in demand, I said more is demanded of them (as in, they need higher test scores to have the same odds of acceptance as whites). This is where we fundamentally disagree - I think it should be a pure meritocracy, blind to income level, race, gender, etc, focused only on getting the best doctors by whatever metrics the adcoms choose. If that means losing my spot to someone who had more money growing up, less racial boundaries, etc. so be it - at least I am not taking the spot of someone who would be predicted to do my job better than me by an admissions committee.
Thats how the UCali system does it, and I think that works fine - having a disproportionally huge population of Asians is exactly what I want to see if their metrics back it up.
@W19 Adcoms can still choose whatever metrics they want, doesn't have to be all about MCAT/GPA. But everyone should be subjected to those metrics equally.
I didn't misinterpret anything. Statement: I never stated or implied that AAs face greater racism. Previous statement: Here is an example of a situation in which AAs face greater racism. Come on, man, I'm not imagining a contradiction.
I didn't say Asians are more in demand, I said more is demanded of them (as in, they need higher test scores to have the same odds of acceptance as whites). This is where we fundamentally disagree - I think it should be a pure meritocracy, blind to income level, race, gender, etc, focused only on getting the best doctors by whatever metrics the adcoms choose. If that means losing my spot to someone who had more money growing up, less racial boundaries, etc. so be it - at least I am not taking the spot of someone who would be predicted to do my job better than me by an admissions committee.
Thats how the UCali system does it, and I think that works fine - having a disproportionally huge population of Asians is exactly what I want to see if their metrics back it up.
@W19 Adcoms can still choose whatever metrics they want, doesn't have to be all about MCAT/GPA. But everyone should be subjected to those metrics equally.
Are people really that upset about URMs getting accepted with lower mcat/GPA scores? Would you prefer your class to only have the highest scoring candidates? What about schools that have an average mcat of 30 or lower? Are those students really less capable? I just checked online at the mcat/GPA numbers and I see that 554 asian Americans were accepted with an mcat of 27-29 with a full range of GPAs. Then for the AA group there are 405 that got accepted with those same grades. So more Asians got in with the same grades as the african American group, oh my the audacity of those african Americans stealing those extra 405 spots from other candidates.
Do you really believe a 3.8 at UPenn is the same as a 3.8 at Arizona State University (nothing against ASU here)?
I'm sure there are stats somewhere and if you find them it would be helpful. Different schools have different takes on diversity. That said, even schools with very few minorities would happily take a qualified minority if they only applied. Sometimes it isn't who they accept but more who applies.
Last edited:
I find it really weird that these SDN URM threads always turn into Caucasian vs. AA -- not Asians vs. Spanish.....
@godawg not sure I follow, are you using raw numbers of acceptances instead of percentages to argue that there isn't a difference?
Funny you say that @W19, because @Aerus was just arguing to me a couple days ago that there is no difference in student capabilities between those getting great marks at Upenn&co vs Average UState. Validity of GPAs is it's own ridiculous debate. And I have been trying to use Spanish/South American in my examples.
@trepon I am absolutely outraged by legacy/donor family "ins" at top schools, it is literally a case of history of $$=acceptance at some places. But again that is a separate discussion.
Funny you say that @W19, because @Aerus was just arguing to me a couple days ago that there is no difference in student capabilities between those getting great marks at Upenn&co vs Average UState. Validity of GPAs is it's own ridiculous debate. And I have been trying to use Spanish/South American in my examples.
@trepon I am absolutely outraged by legacy/donor family "ins" at top schools, it is literally a case of history of $$=acceptance at some places. But again that is a separate discussion.
Well african Americans have the lowest stats among all the groups so they are always a prime target. And then you can either choose asian or whites as the highest scoring group. It's just so ridiculous to me that people are so upset at this when in reality, more asians and whites get into med school with the same stats as african Americans! Seriously! 2494 whites and 554 asians got into med school with a 27-29 mcat. This is compared to 405 blacks. How are they really stealing anyone's spot.
This reminds me of the University of Texas affirmative action case where a white female student alleged she lost her spot to minorities with lower stats. All the admissions had to say to her was that there was in fact 42 whites students with lower stats that got in over her that she might want to pick a bone with lol.
http://gawker.com/5991588/the-white...n-was-too-dumb-to-get-into-her-chosen-college
Seriously! People never seem to bring this up in the debates. URMs get more of an advantage but somehow more whites get in with the same stats. Oh cry me a river.
They will dismiss these numbers... 3/4 of these AA are probably attending HBCU... In reality these numbers can be: 109 AA, 154 Asians, 734 Caucasians...
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
D
deleted480308
you're not very good at statistics....raw numbers aren't the problem, look at the acceptance odds for races at each grade/mcat point
I don't think we are in the same page here... I don't know if there is a difference in capability b/t these students, but I am sure 9 out 10 time, the student at UPenn probably work harder than the one at ASU to get that GPA...
No, I completely understand statistics. The applicant pools are not the same, your argument is invalid. You don't know what the outcome would be if the applicant pool was the same. People don't talk about the raw numbers because they don't support their agenda.
Ok... I am a URM who got into a US MD school with 27 MCAT and I know caucasians in my class with lower MCAT score than me... Did I take someone else (caucasian/asian) spot? You see where I am going with this...
This is precisely why people keep bringing it up, because you don't understand that those high median scores are a result of competition and have nothing to do with competency. It's not that the guy who was rejected with a 31 at Harvard wouldn't have done well at Harvard, it's just that someone else had a 38 and he seemed like an empathetic, socially capable, and involved person as well so "why not". That is precisely what competition is.
