Should I consider myself disadvantaged?

[munsil]

del

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mwooster]

this alone basically eliminated me from getting into any elite schools since they mostly all required subject tests

Not entirely true... many top undergrad schools, including the one I went to, "highly recommend" you to take 3. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I do get a tiny glimpse of what your HS was like.

Have you done anything in your ECs to show your interest in practicing medicine in underserved areas?

 

[ConfusedChemist]

holy cow.....this is my life exactly!
I figure it'll be good for interviews because of the perspective and appriciation you gain for people from all backgrounds, education, and socio-economic classes 🙂

 

[efle]

Disadvantaged refers to socioeconomic status and experience, not the quality of your college, high school, middle school or elementary school education. If you were poor, then mark it for that reason.

 

[munsil]

Not entirely true... many top undergrad schools, including the one I went to, "highly recommend" you to take 3. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I do get a tiny glimpse of what your HS was like.

Have you done anything in your ECs to show your interest in practicing medicine in underserved areas?

I didn't mention that I ended up taking 2, because there were a few schools I'm pretty sure that did require them. And of course I didn't do very well... I'm sure my scores on these tests did not help my application at all.

This sounds kind of dumb, but the first 2 years of college I didn't do too many extracurriculars because I spent a lot of time studying.... but I did end up joining an organization that travels to developing countries and sets up medical clinics. Through this, I went to Honduras and Ghana, and was on the eboard for a year--these experiences also added to my desire to work in disadvantaged areas.

 

[munsil]

Disadvantaged refers to socioeconomic status and experience, not the quality of your college, high school, middle school or elementary school education. If you were poor, then mark it for that reason.

If you actually read the application, it says "Do you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by any of your designated medical schools that may consider such factors (social, economic or educational)?"

Also, it further explains "Underserved" as: "Do you believe, based on your own experiences or the experiences of family and friends, that the area in which you grew up was adequately served by the available health care professionals? Were there enough physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and other health care service providers?"

So... being poor is not the only way to be disadvantaged.

 

[LizzyM]

AMCAS Manual 2016, page 31: Disadvantaged Status: You will then be asked if you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by your designated medical schools. You might consider yourself disadvantaged if you grew up in an area that was medically underserved or had insufficient accesss to State and Federal Assistance programs. Click Yes to be considered a disadvantaged applicant. You will be given an additional 1,325 characters to explain why you believe you should be considered a disadvantaged applicant.

You could say that you were disadvantaged in attending college because the HS you attended did not offer AP or Honors courses, the college advising was subpar, and there were very few extracurricular opportunities.

However, if your parents had a very good income, there might be a question about why you attended such a crappy school. If you lived in a rural area with no other alternatives or if you were required to live where you lived because of a parent's job, then you should be sure to explain that. (e.g. a postmaster must live in the zip code so you could end up stuck in a bad school district for that reason). You might want to add some information about why you lived where you did, particularly if you weren't poor.

 

[chemist16]

Disadvantaged refers to socioeconomic status and experience, not the quality of your college, high school, middle school or elementary school education. If you were poor, then mark it for that reason.

Uhhh, no. Living in a rural area with a poor school system definitely puts you at a disadvantage and medical schools recognize that.

http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/diversity/docs/AMCAS Tips.pdf
http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...t-it-means-to-be-a-disadvantaged-md-applicant

 

[munsil]

AMCAS Manual 2016, page 31: Disadvantaged Status: You will then be asked if you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by your designated medical schools. You might consider yourself disadvantaged if you grew up in an area that was medically underserved or had insufficient accesss to State and Federal Assistance programs. Click Yes to be considered a disadvantaged applicant. You will be given an additional 1,325 characters to explain why you believe you should be considered a disadvantaged applicant.

You could say that you were disadvantaged in attending college because the HS you attended did not offer AP or Honors courses, the college advising was subpar, and there were very few extracurricular opportunities.

However, if your parents had a very good income, there might be a question about why you attended such a crappy school. If you lived in a rural area with no other alternatives or if you were required to live where you lived because of a parent's job, then you should be sure to explain that. (e.g. a postmaster must live in the zip code so you could end up stuck in a bad school district for that reason). You might want to add some information about why you lived where you did, particularly if you weren't poor.

Thanks for informative response!

Pretty much the reasoning for me not going to a better school was because the area was so rural that there were no other alternatives. The district actually served 6-7 towns, even though my graduating class was comprised of only 130 students.

And I ended up living there for a mixture of reasons... similar to medical doctors, my dad's company actually paid professionals more for their willingness to work in such a horrible area. Also, my parents are kind of hippies who like nature and farms and stuff😵

But yes, I will definitely elaborate on all of this if I end up putting it in my application!

 

[efle]

If you actually read the application, it says "Do you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by any of your designated medical schools that may consider such factors (social, economic or educational)?"

Also, it further explains "Underserved" as: "Do you believe, based on your own experiences or the experiences of family and friends, that the area in which you grew up was adequately served by the available health care professionals? Were there enough physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and other health care service providers?"

So... being poor is not the only way to be disadvantaged.

I interpret educationally disadvantaged to mean things like received no or considerably less than normal schooling for a large period of childhood due to neglect/taking care of siblings/working and so on. Alternatively, going to school somewhere violent and dangerous. Going to a small high school without APs is a far cry from educationally disadvantaged in my mind.

AMCAS Manual 2016, page 31: Disadvantaged Status: You will then be asked if you wish to be considered a disadvantaged applicant by your designated medical schools. You might consider yourself disadvantaged if you grew up in an area that was medically underserved or had insufficient accesss to State and Federal Assistance programs. Click Yes to be considered a disadvantaged applicant. You will be given an additional 1,325 characters to explain why you believe you should be considered a disadvantaged applicant.

You could say that you were disadvantaged in attending college because the HS you attended did not offer AP or Honors courses, the college advising was subpar, and there were very few extracurricular opportunities.

However, if your parents had a very good income, there might be a question about why you attended such a crappy school. If you lived in a rural area with no other alternatives or if you were required to live where you lived because of a parent's job, then you should be sure to explain that. (e.g. a postmaster must live in the zip code so you could end up stuck in a bad school district for that reason). You might want to add some information about why you lived where you did, particularly if you weren't poor.

Do you really consider a high school without APs to qualify for disadvantaged status? I thought this stuff was for much more serious things than "waah I should have been better advised and landed at a more prestigious college"

 

[chemist16]

I interpret educationally disadvantaged to mean things like received no or considerably less than normal schooling for a large period of childhood due to neglect/taking care of siblings/working and so on. Alternatively, going to school somewhere violent and dangerous. Going to a small high school without APs is a far cry from educationally disadvantaged in my mind.

Fortunately, that narrow interpretation is not how most people interpret it. It's far too narrow a definition. If you re-read OP's post, it's not just a small high school without APs. This is a poor rural high school that did not prepare students for the rigor of college (I believe OP's point was that it did not prepare him/her for the rigor of college courses and I'm sure if he/she asked around, many of his/her peers had the same experience). Without adequate resources and with a guidance counselor who did not even know what an SAT Subject Test was, OP was disadvantaged compared to his/her peers upon entrance to college. I'm sure you won't argue that a student who came from a high school with outdated books, few academic resources, and inadequate college counseling is on the same level as somebody who went to a magnet high school or even a normal high school with proper books, resources, and counseling. Many people who had that privilege really don't realize it and don't understand how much it hinders those who never had that sort of privilege.

 

[efle]

Fortunately, that narrow interpretation is not how most people interpret it. It's far too narrow a definition. If you re-read OP's post, it's not just a small high school without APs. This is a poor rural high school that did not prepare students for the rigor of college (I believe OP's point was that it did not prepare him/her for the rigor of college courses and I'm sure if he/she asked around, many of his/her peers had the same experience). Without adequate resources and with a guidance counselor who did not even know what an SAT Subject Test was, OP was disadvantaged compared to his/her peers upon entrance to college. I'm sure you won't argue that a student who came from a high school with outdated books, few academic resources, and inadequate college counseling is on the same level as somebody who went to a magnet high school or even a normal high school with proper books, resources, and counseling. Many people who had that privilege really don't realize it and don't understand how much it hinders those who never had that sort of privilege.

I've lived in both a rural town and major city and attended the public schools at both. I would not call students at the former "disadvantaged". I would call my father's time in school "disadvantaged". I think struggling to adjust to college is normal, and I think schools being underfunded and overcrowded is normal, and I think advisers being ****ty is normal, but to each their own for what they think is atypically difficult enough to be disadvantaged

 

[Coleworld]

No offense OP but you really don't sound disadvantaged. Not being able to get into an Ivy league doesn't mean you're disadvantaged, there are millions of people who can barely obtain a college education. Complaining about not being able to get into an Ivy league is equivalent to complaining that your rolls royce's paint job is slightly chipped.

No AP classes is pretty standard for a lot of schools, my high school didn't have AP classes and I wouldn't consider myself disadvantaged for that. Counselors not knowing about SAT 2 is pretty common, it's pretty akin to "the idiotic premed advisors" who often give us bad advice. There are a lot of resources to find out that information too.

Poverty and real academic disadvantages should be included, but the way you phrase it makes you sound privileged (no offense). Dropping out of school, having to support your family, having almost no opportunities for college are all real disadvantages. I only designated myself as disadvantaged because my life experiences really crippled my life and opportunities, which fit two of the above.

I strongly advise you to think about this a lot more because your experiences are pretty standard.

 

[efle]

Not being able to get into an Ivy league doesn't mean you're disadvantaged, there are millions of people who can barely obtain a college education. Complaining about not being able to get into an Ivy league is equivalent to complaining that your rolls royce's paint job is slightly chipped.

Dropping out of school, having to support your family, having almost no opportunities for college are all real disadvantages.

Ding ding ding. The truly disadvantaged generally do not whine about not getting in to elite colleges. That's the definition of firstworld problem.

And chemist 16, don't worry, we checked our privileges at the door and have some grounds to participate in the discussion

 

[Coleworld]

Ding ding ding. The truly disadvantaged generally do not whine about not getting in to elite colleges. That's the definition of firstworld problem.

And chemist 16, don't worry, we checked our privileges at the door and have some grounds to participate in the discussion

Exactly. Elite colleges are elite for a reason, they're hard as **** to get into for anyone, even if they have their ducks in line and aren't disadvantaged in the slightest. Are those ppl disadvantaged? no. Just no. Stuff like this is why disadvantaged statements aren't taken as seriously as they should be.

As a disadvantaged student, I was happy as hell to take classes at a dilapted run-down, underfunded community college that had to cut needed classes by the boatload, and just learn something after dropping out of school. Getting a GED after 5 years was a ridiculous accomplishment, let-alone anything more, and did I disclose all of this? Hell no.

Disadvantaged isn't another box to check on the application, just for the sake of checking it. It's there for a reason, and should be respected. If I was an adcom and read something like the OP in a disadvantaged statement, I'd flag the application and probably reject it. You don't get more bonus points for checking a box like this if it isn't authentic.

Life isn't fair and complaining about normal problems is something everyone does, but expecting to be treated special for them doesn't fly. Even if one is actually disadvantaged expecting that isn't appropriate. What comes with being disadvantaged is having to take things into your hands, pulling everything you can to succeed, and find opportunity. Let your accomplishments speak for themselves.

I suggest OP looks up the terms relative and absolute poverty. Just because there are people in better circumstances relative to yourself doesn't mean you're at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying your circumstances potentially omitted in the OP aren't disadvantaged, but for the love of god, don't bring up that ivy league business or complain about pretty standard high school stuff. That's not disadvantaged and is pretty insulting. Be very careful of bringing stuff like this up in interviews to, it shows a lack of regard for actual adversity and lack of sensitivity to those who face it.

 

[The Cheat]

Hey dude. Being disadvantaged seems like one of those things that can be subjective. Fill out the disadvantaged section on AMCAS and see what happens.

 

[efle]

Hey dude. Being disadvantaged seems like one of those things that can be subjective. Fill out the disadvantaged section on AMCAS and see what happens.

Yeah and why not put that he's Hispanic while he's at it?

 

[The Cheat]

^If it floats his boat then why not?

 

[efle]

^If it floats his boat then why not?

Because it may not float the adcoms boat

 

[The Cheat]

That's a risk OP is going to have to take if they fill out the disadvantaged box.

 

[maroonspinstress]

Was going to post a separate thread, but this seems like an appropriate, recent one to jump on:

My family has been poor for most of my life--WIC, foodstamps, you name it. We're immigrants, and my mother doesn't speak much English.

But, I received a huge merit scholarship to go to fancy private high school, and now I'm at an Ivy on full financial aid. I'm incredibly grateful for all the aid I've gotten, and I would not say that I've been educationally disadvantaged in the slightest. And, my father graduated from college a few years ago as a nontrad undergrad (yay dad!!), so I am technically not a first-generation college student. He also got a steady job, so our income at the moment is not amazing but also much better than it had been for the first 17 years or so of my life.

So, how do I reconcile these two things? I'm pretty determined not to declare "disadvantaged status" because I feel dishonest doing that given all the money I've received towards education, but I'm wondering if there's anywhere else in the application for me to briefly discuss these issues. I guess I don't want adcoms to look at my preppy high school, my preppy undergrad, and our current income, and miss the backstory. The first 17 years of my life weren't a piece of cake--even with a huge scholarship taking care of education, I was still dealing with all the other problems of coming from a poor family. It's important context for me, but it's not important to why I want to be a doctor, so I don't want to discuss in PS.

Thoughts?

 

[Grace184]

I don't know what an sat subject test is and I went to catholic school. My guidance counselor never brought this up. We had minimal extra curricular bc the state gives the money to the money to public schools. We used books that were literally 10 years old bc we couldn't afford to buy new ones. Our tuition was used to pay the faculty their 30k a year (God bless them). We didn't even have a sports field, we had to rent one from a park and a local public school. I didn't do well in chemistry in college at first bc we had no money for a chem lab, and I had 4 different chemistry teachers bc no one would work for the money that was offered. There were 56 people in my graduating class.

I blame everything on the SAT subject test never offered to me and the Bishop at the nearby seminary who never allowed us to swim in his Olympic full size pool (it's true, he had one and wouldn't share.)

 

[munsil]

Exactly. Elite colleges are elite for a reason, they're hard as **** to get into for anyone, even if they have their ducks in line and aren't disadvantaged in the slightest. Are those ppl disadvantaged? no. Just no. Stuff like this is why disadvantaged statements aren't taken as seriously as they should be.

As a disadvantaged student, I was happy as hell to take classes at a dilapted run-down, underfunded community college that had to cut needed classes by the boatload, and just learn something after dropping out of school. Getting a GED after 5 years was a ridiculous accomplishment, let-alone anything more, and did I disclose all of this? Hell no.

Disadvantaged isn't another box to check on the application, just for the sake of checking it. It's there for a reason, and should be respected. If I was an adcom and read something like the OP in a disadvantaged statement, I'd flag the application and probably reject it. You don't get more bonus points for checking a box like this if it isn't authentic.

Life isn't fair and complaining about normal problems is something everyone does, but expecting to be treated special for them doesn't fly. Even if one is actually disadvantaged expecting that isn't appropriate. What comes with being disadvantaged is having to take things into your hands, pulling everything you can to succeed, and find opportunity. Let your accomplishments speak for themselves.

I suggest OP looks up the terms relative and absolute poverty. Just because there are people in better circumstances relative to yourself doesn't mean you're at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying your circumstances potentially omitted in the OP aren't disadvantaged, but for the love of god, don't bring up that ivy league business or complain about pretty standard high school stuff. That's not disadvantaged and is pretty insulting. Be very careful of bringing stuff like this up in interviews to, it shows a lack of regard for actual adversity and lack of sensitivity to those who face it.

Um, no offense but you just seem to be incredibly bitter for the fact that you were disadvantaged and that others may be as well, even if they don't come from your particular circumstances. Luckily for me, I'm fairly certain you're not on an admissions committee so your opinion really doesn't matter....

As others said, the designation as disadvantaged is subjective. And as I said, the only reason I am even considering it is because if you read the application, I technically qualify. This is not based off of my opinion or how I "feel". Therefore, I am considering it.

I also know that my situation is considered relatively disadvantaged (and no, I haven't disclosed every detail to you all) because even though my test scores were abysmal, someone on the admissions committee at arguably the best school in the country decided I was worth waitlisting. And I thank them, because they helped me realize that I'm not stupid or incapable, but that maybe I didn't have all of the same opportunities.

 

[Grace184]

I think all of you may be considered disadvantaged by virtue of not qualifying as disadvantaged. That has prevented you from obtaining the advantages of being in a disadvantaged status, which in turn kept you from attending top schools for free.

Someone give this a shot, let us know how it goes over.

I am still blaming my Bishop. He's a Cardinal now(status upgrade). He probably peed in that pool. I never was afforded that opportunity.

 

[Affiche]

Another disadvantaged student chiming in. I don't understand the hostility from @efle or @Coleworld because from your posts, it's pretty impossible to gain a full understanding of your upbringing. Maybe this will help you make your decision:

Were you inspired to go into medicine and serve under-resourced communities because of the one you grew up in? Did you yourself have resources, but those around you didn't? If so, this should be more of a focus in your PS than a reason to apply disadvantaged.

On the other hand, if you received an education that was far below the national standard, resulting in you beginning college far behind everyone else, you may have been disadvantaged. Be careful though, because this could also read as "My family was well-resourced but our neighbors weren't. Their taxes couldn't afford to fund our public school, so I had to endure a sub-par education because of their poverty".

 

[LizzyM]

Another disadvantaged student chiming in. I don't understand the hostility from @efle or @Coleworld because from your posts, it's pretty impossible to gain a full understanding of your upbringing. Maybe this will help you make your decision:

Were you inspired to go into medicine and serve under-resourced communities because of the one you grew up in? Did you yourself have resources, but those around you didn't? If so, this should be more of a focus in your PS than a reason to apply disadvantaged.

On the other hand, if you received an education that was far below the national standard, resulting in you beginning college far behind everyone else, you may have been disadvantaged. Be careful though, because this could also read as "My family was well-resourced but our neighbors weren't. Their taxes couldn't afford to fund our public school, so I had to endure a sub-par education because of their poverty".

This is all well and good but it didn't work out well at one school for an applicant from a really poor rural area whose parents were both doctors. The adcom member who reviewed the application and passed it to me just couldn't wrap their head around someone growing up in a two-physician-income household claiming to be disadvantaged.

 

[Grace184]

Both my Parents were public school teachers at inner city schools where stabbings and violence were quite common (my mom taught 2nd grade- stabbed 3x all separate occasions- by pencils!). They used to hold them back until it was decided kids needed to keep moving up grades regardless of ability. This trickled up. My dad taught HS. Well before school shootings were rampant, they had metal detectors. Eventually had to take out soda can machines mid 90s bc they would use cans and make weapons. Most were in gangs, dropped out, got pregnant, etc. very few made it to graduation. This is an example of a poor educational environment well below the national standard. Almost every on their week there was a dead student due to gang violence. And digressing to my moms school, the kids in 2nd grade were literally on their own- no one to help them with their homework, moving up grades without understanding previous material, therefore ending up dropping out of HS, usually. It was quite sad...I remember helping my mom grade papers when I was in kindergarten and being able to do math better- I'm not a genius, my mom wasn't a bad teacher, the children were forced by the system to move along regardless of ability.​

 

[Grace184]

So I say things joking around, but there are truly educationally disadvantaged students who had no options but to attend the schools they did based on circumstances

 

[munsil]

Another disadvantaged student chiming in. I don't understand the hostility from @efle or @Coleworld because from your posts, it's pretty impossible to gain a full understanding of your upbringing. Maybe this will help you make your decision:

Were you inspired to go into medicine and serve under-resourced communities because of the one you grew up in? Did you yourself have resources, but those around you didn't? If so, this should be more of a focus in your PS than a reason to apply disadvantaged.

On the other hand, if you received an education that was far below the national standard, resulting in you beginning college far behind everyone else, you may have been disadvantaged. Be careful though, because this could also read as "My family was well-resourced but our neighbors weren't. Their taxes couldn't afford to fund our public school, so I had to endure a sub-par education because of their poverty".

Yeah, I've been leaning towards just emphasizing it in my PS (which I did) and not actually claiming it. Like I said, I only came across this dilemma once I read the prompt on the application and realized that I kind of do qualify, and I know that I was actually negatively impacted by the circumstances.

As far as my parents and upbringing go, my mother is actually an immigrant who barely finished high school and speaks limited english. My father was homeless for a couple of years before he joined the army and ultimately went to college at 26. So, yeah, I'm not economically disadvantaged and I never have been, but my parents also did not raise me to expect that everything will be handed to me...

 

[Grace184]

I am referring a subjective, not objective- like not fearing for your life when you walk through your school doors, or, to objective, the number of matriculants vs graduates in a HS class

 

[Grace184]

But if you want to win, Tired, you can. I don't feel like a debate. My school wasn't privileged enough to have one and I am at a disadvantage.

I was simply pointing out a true struggle that some disadvantaged students go through and instead of embracing and understanding it, you picked a stats game. You are a winner.

 

[Affiche]

@Tired There is a national standard that you can compare to and there is nothing "mythical" about it. I agree that it's not a quality comparison, but schools do report things such as graduation rate, amount of $$ spent on each student, percentage of students who attend a four year university, average standardized test scores, etc. For example, when comparing inner city public schools to their suburban counterparts, they have to use standards (such as those I've listed) to draw a comparison. That said, OP is going to have a tough time selling that his/her school was disadvantaged using only subjective measurements.


@LizzyM I absolutely agree that this is dangerous territory and could really backfire on the OP. I carefully worded my response to avoid advising for or against claiming disadvantaged status. I also warned the OP to tread with caution. The OP doesn't state what his/her financial situation actually was, so relative to his/her peers, he/she may feel "well-resourced" but may actually be disadvantaged by a national standard. If that's not the case, then I think the last sentence in my first post does a well enough job of explaining my stance.

 

[chemist16]

Disadvantaged refers to socioeconomic status and experience, not the quality of your college, high school, middle school or elementary school education. If you were poor, then mark it for that reason.

I interpret educationally disadvantaged to mean things like received no or considerably less than normal schooling for a large period of childhood due to neglect/taking care of siblings/working and so on. Alternatively, going to school somewhere violent and dangerous. Going to a small high school without APs is a far cry from educationally disadvantaged in my mind.

Sorry if this offends you, but you seem to have a problem with just being wrong. First you don't even include educational disadvantage as "disadvantaged" and then you flip back and arbitrarily define it very narrowly. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll just assume that your latest stance is your actual one and that you actually believe that educationally disadvantaged is a thing.

What you don't seem to understand is that "disadvantaged" can refer to a spectrum. Sure, somebody who dropped out of school to take care of his/her family is disadvantaged. But the question then becomes, where do you draw the line? Someone who goes to a rural high school is not disadvantaged. Fine. Their daddy could have hired a tutor, been a doctor, etc. Context matters. But to say that underfunded and crowded schools is normal is to avoid the problem. If OP can articulate how his/her poor, rural high school education materially affected his/her first year in college (I say if because I'm not prone to making assumptions), then OP was educationally disadvantaged in high school. Without knowing his/her full story, you cannot see if it is self-consistent. If OP's parents are high-income doctors, lawyers, etc., then the story loses merit. But you don't know any of those things. Is OP less disadvantaged compared to someone who dropped out of school and had to live on the streets for a year? Yes. Is OP more disadvantaged to those who went to adequately-funded, non-crowded schools with a guidance counselor who simply knew how to do his/her job? Yes. Notice I'm not comparing OP to kids who went to an expensive private boarding school with vast resources. The line you draw is purely arbitrary.

As a disadvantaged student, I was happy as hell to take classes at a dilapted run-down, underfunded community college that had to cut needed classes by the boatload, and just learn something after dropping out of school. Getting a GED after 5 years was a ridiculous accomplishment, let-alone anything more, and did I disclose all of this? Hell no.

So... you feel you are a disadvantaged student but you didn't mark that in your application?

@LizzyM I absolutely agree that this is dangerous territory and could really backfire on the OP. I carefully worded my response to avoid advising for or against claiming disadvantaged status. I also warned the OP to tread with caution. The OP doesn't state what his/her financial situation actually was, so relative to his/her peers, he/she may feel "well-resourced" but may actually be disadvantaged by a national standard. If that's not the case, then I think the last sentence in my first post does a well enough job of explaining my stance.

Great! Context matters a lot and so does a self-consistent story. We shouldn't make assumptions without justification on here. All we can do is give the OP general advice.

 

[Affiche]

@Tired are you talking in terms of the standards that schools have to meet to continue to receive funding or what the national medians are? To clarify from previous posts, there are different standards set by each state, but generally if a school is well below national averages I would consider them disadvantaged. If you are interested in standards, the new Common Core Standard would probably be a good place to start. If you're interested in national medians for public high schools, a simple google search should suffice.

Disclaimer: I've done a significant amount of work in Chicago Public Schools and I get really touchy about this subject. Schools do fall behind the national median, there are benchmarks put in place to help them catch up and they do often fail (which often results in more funding cut for those schools). The only way these schools can continue to get funding is by meeting certain "standards", which are generally put in place to catch the school back up to national medians, but they rarely ever work (at least in CPS)

This discusses national medians from a few years ago (I'm busy at work so I can't dig up a bunch of research for you): http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014391.pdf

 

[chemist16]

Disclaimer: I've done a significant amount of work in Chicago Public Schools and I get really touchy about this subject. Schools do fall behind the national median, there are benchmarks put in place to help them catch up and they do often fail (which often results in more funding cut for those schools). The only way these schools can continue to get funding is by meeting certain "standards", which are generally put in place to catch the school back up to national medians, but they rarely ever work (at least in CPS)

This is my experience as well. When you base school funding on student performance, you're really just rewarding schools with more money/resources that can help students excel while punishing schools that already don't have funds to help their students. It's kind of a backward system and Common Core is really just a huge mess. IMO, it's setting education back ten years.

 

[Affiche]

I'm also not a fan of Common Core, but anyone who is going to comment on the lack of standards in education should at least be familiar with what standards exist and how it affects students (no offense meant). It's immensely frustrating to read comments about the education system from people who have never worked with failing schools. These schools do fail, they do get punished for it, and their students are at a disadvantage, and there's nothing subjective or mythical about it.

Okay, end of rant.

 

[chemist16]

I think the Common Core and funding problems point to the fundamental problem of this thread. Children who attend poor schools are disadvantaged because they simply do not have adequate resources to succeed. Notice I'm not saying they are disadvantaged because they don't have the same amount of resources as children who attend private schools, but rather that they don't have adequate resources. This includes outdated textbooks, technology (basic technology), disillusioned teachers, etc. Rectifying this huge handicap is not something that can be done overnight with a single policy change. It takes time. What the Common Core fails to do is recognize that students learn at different rates, between classes as well as within classes. For instance, demanding that every student in America learn Calculus uniformly fails to recognize that for a student who is already at a well-off school, that's an easy step - he/she probably is already learning it. But for a student in a poor school who normally never makes it past algebra, that's a formidable challenge. When you hold both schools to the same standard year after year, the poor one is at a huge disadvantage.

 

[munsil]

del

 

[chemist16]

So basically, you would contend that if a school falls below the 50th percentile in terms of testing performance, students at those schools are educationally disadvantaged?

"Disadvantaged" is a spectrum. Understand that. Students at a school in the 49th percentile may not be disadvantaged. Students at the 25th percentile or lower may be disadvantaged. The rest of it comes from whether the story is self-consistent. Did that student have rich parents who hired tutors for him/her? Can he/she attest to a material hindrance of first-year college performance based on attending the disadvantaged high school?

 

[Affiche]

What do you think the Common Core Standard is? It's a standard of curriculum that schools need to meet. I didn't say that Common Core adjusts the funding (nor did I mean to imply it).

Far below the median, yes. Of course you have to account for number of standard deviations below the mean.

 

[chemist16]

So basically:
- there's no clear standard
- living in a rural (or urban) area that is poor doesn't automatically make you disadvantaged
- applicants are free to claim whatever they want, but it will be critically evaluated
- this thread wasted 30+ posts on self-pity and liberal guilt for no reason
- @LizzyM was right all along

Super.

Smoking doesn't automatically give you lung cancer. Doesn't mean that you should smoke. Why? Because it makes you more likely than not to get lung cancer.

Having a 38 MCAT doesn't automatically get you into med school. Doesn't mean that you should give up on the MCAT. Why? Because having a 38 makes you more likely to get into med school.

Comfortable dealing with probability and multiple factors yet? Just because something isn't absolute doesn't mean you should discount it immediately.

 

[Affiche]

This thread isn't 30+ posts on self-pity and liberal guilt, it's evidence that those who don't want to get it never will.

 

[Affiche]

Would you call a CPS that graduates 50% of its class disadvantaged? Because even of those 50% that get through high school, only 8-14% of those students will graduate college by their mid-twenties. Guess how many have a chance at professional school?

Suburban public high schools in the Chicago-area spend between $12,000-$19,000 per year on each student. The national median is around $12,000. CPS spends ~$10,000.

The fact that there's a disadvantage is undeniable.

Edited to update information.

 

[efle]

Sorry if this offends you, but you seem to have a problem with just being wrong. First you don't even include educational disadvantage as "disadvantaged" and then you flip back and arbitrarily define it very narrowly. But for the sake of simplicity, I'll just assume that your latest stance is your actual one and that you actually believe that educationally disadvantaged is a thing.

What you don't seem to understand is that "disadvantaged" can refer to a spectrum. Sure, somebody who dropped out of school to take care of his/her family is disadvantaged. But the question then becomes, where do you draw the line? Someone who goes to a rural high school is not disadvantaged. Fine. Their daddy could have hired a tutor, been a doctor, etc. Context matters. But to say that underfunded and crowded schools is normal is to avoid the problem. If OP can articulate how his/her poor, rural high school education materially affected his/her first year in college (I say if because I'm not prone to making assumptions), then OP was educationally disadvantaged in high school. Without knowing his/her full story, you cannot see if it is self-consistent. If OP's parents are high-income doctors, lawyers, etc., then the story loses merit. But you don't know any of those things. Is OP less disadvantaged compared to someone who dropped out of school and had to live on the streets for a year? Yes. Is OP more disadvantaged to those who went to adequately-funded, non-crowded schools with a guidance counselor who simply knew how to do his/her job? Yes. Notice I'm not comparing OP to kids who went to an expensive private boarding school with vast resources. The line you draw is purely arbitrary.



So... you feel you are a disadvantaged student but you didn't mark that in your application?



Great! Context matters a lot and so does a self-consistent story. We shouldn't make assumptions without justification on here. All we can do is give the OP general advice.

I'll clarify. I consider disadvantaged to be directly intertwined with SES, which can manifest in education (as well as many other ways) and relates to access. If your area and experience is so stricken with crime and poverty that you can't go to school (or if you do go, receive anything resembling an education) you're disadvantaged. A school having out-of-the-loop advisers and only one level of math class does not qualify, imo.

The evidence I'm using is based on things he said such as boo hoo I didn't get a fair shot at elite colleges. That does not exactly imply difficulty getting to go to school or receive a decent education; lack of honors is especially funny, because I've dealt with that myself. Getting the regular class is not disadvantageous and is what many college-bound high schoolers take. You can just self-study more advanced material.

Yes, it is an arbitrary line. Different adcoms will have their own arbitrary lines just like I do. I'd wager most will be closer to my definitions for disadvantaged than "small school had only one level for classes, and the advisers didn't know what was typical to get kids into the Ivy League".

Honestly, it's likely I won't put that I'm disadvantaged, but more importantly, I'm learning that many of you have SERIOUSLY MISGUIDED IDEAS about what it means to grow up in an extremely rural area--which makes sense because by definition very few people do understand.

Going to a "violent and dangerous school" in the inner city is obviously horrible. But a huge problem with rural, isolated schools is the lack of opportunity in terms of upward mobility. It is almost impossible. No matter how intelligent you are, it's likely that you will reach a maximal level of achievement that cannot be surpassed because THERE ARE NO OPPORTUNITIES.

The main thing I've learned from this post, to be frank, is that I want to help areas like this even more, and I'm grateful that I have had first hand experience to bring me to this conclusion. I have seen the neglect and stagnation that these areas have suffered from, and I'm noticing a lot of people don't care... anyway, thanks guys.

I've lived rural buddy. Even if I hadn't, don't fall into that old fallacy - the experiences of the person presenting the argument are separate from the argument itself.

NO OPPORTUNITIES? Did you take the PSAT or SAT or ACT? Because those are all opportunities to secure massive financial packages at some very quality public universities. You need to stop thinking about opportunity in terms of what people going to elite schools usually had access to, and start thinking about whether you had enough to get into a college. Disadvantaged is going to be arbitrary along a spectrum in the eyes of adcoms too, but I guarantee not many will define it relative to entry at Yale.

 

[Affiche]

I agree with a lot of @efle said, but the issue with having a hard-fast rule about what qualifies as "disadvantaged", as well as using only SES, is that there are far too many factors that contribute to putting someone at a disadvantage.

 

[efle]

Smoking doesn't automatically give you lung cancer. Doesn't mean that you should smoke. Why? Because it makes you more likely than not to get lung cancer.

Having a 38 MCAT doesn't automatically get you into med school. Doesn't mean that you should give up on the MCAT. Why? Because having a 38 makes you more likely to get into med school.

Comfortable dealing with probability and multiple factors yet? Just because something isn't absolute doesn't mean you should discount it immediately.

Are you? How does a better understanding of probability change or invalidate anything he said? Those are all true statements.

God I love watching people condescend while they actually put forth no coherent argument whatsoever

 

[munsil]

d

 

[LizzyM]

Would you call a CPS that graduates 50% of its class disadvantaged? Because even of those 50% that get through high school, only 8-14% of those students will graduate college by their mid-twenties. Guess how many have a chance at professional school?

Suburban public high schools in the Chicago-area spend between $12,000-$19,000 per year on each student. The national median is around $12,000. CPS spends ~$6,000.

The fact that there's a disadvantage is undeniable.

Where did you get that figure? It is complete baloney. http://chicagoist.com/2013/06/19/crains_chicago_business_and_how_to.php
Spending is $11,931/pupil in CPS. Of course, much of that goes to administration, not instruction.

That said, I know of CPS grads who have graduated from top undergrad, grad schools and professional schools. The selective enrollment high schools are some of the best in the nation.

If someone feels that there K-12 experience put them at a disadvantage when they arrived in college, they can call themselves "disadvantaged" and explain although, as has been said, if your parents are high SES, then your claim of disadvantage may be discounted.

 

[efle]

@efle
The fact that I have to clarify this to you means that NO, YOU DON'T GET IT. I am not exclusively talking about myself at this point, but I'm speaking for rural students in general. Fancy tutors and extra help DID NOT exist where I lived. In my personal experience, my SAT score and my MCAT score are ridiculously disparate, and I can tell you it is because of where I grew up. I can also guarantee you I was not the only person in this situation. And I come from a good family background. I can only imagine what it's like to even have what's considered an average upbringing in that area. You need to get it out of your seemingly small mind that I'm just talking about going to Ivy leagues. Roots in those areas run deep, and even the thought of leaving the immediate towns to go to a public school is a big deal.

Anyway, I have very limited experience on this forum, but I would have to say I'm mildly disturbed that some of you are either planning to join the medical field or are already a part of it. I may be wrong, but I think good social skills and empathy are part of the profession, and I'm getting some seriously bad vibes here.

But I appreciate the genuine advice. Bye.

Ah yes, because any arguments you can't actually refute become blanket statements on your opponent's incompetence. I did not have tutoring or help. In fact, I taught myself out of textbooks while sitting in class for several years because the teachers couldnt or wouldnt meet my needs. I did well enough on the SAT to get into some great schools, but did better on my MCAT too. Roots run deep? Please. Everywhere in the nation is within driving distance from colleges. These arguments are beyond weak, as is your ad hominem there.

See you later. If you're so certain I'm wrong, go ahead and mark the box...I'm sure it won't possibly **** you over from adcoms agreeing a lot more with me about if you were disadvantaged.

 

[munsil]

Ah yes, because any arguments you can't actually refute become blanket statements on your opponent's incompetence. I did not have tutoring or help. In fact, I taught myself out of textbooks while sitting in class for several years because the teachers couldnt or wouldnt meet my needs. I did well enough on the SAT to get into some great schools, but did better on my MCAT too. Roots run deep? Please. Everywhere in the nation is within driving distance from colleges. These arguments are beyond weak, as is your ad hominem there.

See you later. If you're so certain I'm wrong, go ahead and mark the box...I'm sure it won't possibly **** you over from adcoms agreeing a lot more with me about if you were disadvantaged.

EVIDENTLY you have not read all my posts. What is wrong with you?