Should URM classification be continued?

[Aerus]

What I meant is that adcoms don't just see the box checked URM and then automatically accept someone.

They still look at the whole application. If the applicant is URM and from an area that has few doctors, an adcom will see that as a positive. If the URM has ECs working within underserved communities, that will be a positive. If a URM has those, they will serve a greater good than someone with better stats.

As I have said many times, the application is not in a vacuum. All factors come into play. Someone who checks URM and gets in over someone who seems like a better candidate would be likely to have a background and ECs that show that they will be more willing to serve underserved populations.

And you said it again. ORMs need to get higher stats with this policy. Stop talking about stats! It's a whole application with many factors, including stats! With any factor, there are some people who will naturally have an advantage over others. An example I keep bringing up is a solid interview can push you into a place where you did not expect. Is that unfair? Of course not. Yet somehow when we talk about race as a factor (which improves patient care just like being a relatable, charismatic person does), then everyone freaks out.

Of course it's not an automatic IN with the check. But the check ensures they receive a boost JUST for checking it. They don't let the ones who do community service for undeserved populations and reject the ones who don't, assuming both have lower scores than the average.

Sorry, when I mean stats/scores, I mean performance overall, including grades/MCAT/personal statement quality/EC's/Interview success. I'm just talking about the URM thing automatically giving a boost (not automatically letting them in, but the BOOST) which is unfair.

Back to "stats" overall performance. A ORM has to do better OVERALL, in terms of performance (hold the ORM status) in order to get in than the URM's. Just BEING URM gives them an advantage (Again, I never said auto in).

Over represented people have to do better in grades, MCATs, PS's, Interview, everything to match a lower applicant with that check box boost.

But I guess, when it boils down, life is unfair. Gotta accept that. It's a good time killer to discuss these topics, but little will actually happen for the time being.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[StBernardsRule]

Deleted because me and DanGee are just going to have the same discussion I've already had. See below though.

 

[StBernardsRule]

You'd better keep them hidden, until you can get out of med school and away from those black folk.

-White guy

For the record....

#1) I never treat anyone differently because of the color of their skin, nor do I think people should ever be treated differently due to the color of their skin. That's why I'm against getting a URM boost, but for getting a boost based on socioeconomic conditions. This would overall help URM since they have lower income brackets, but doesn't discriminate against an Asian who had to overcome the same difficulties as someone who was a URM. They should both get the same boost if they have similar situations.

#2) also think it is unreasonable to cater to racist patients. This may result in better immediate treatment, but it's not worth showing that racial discrimination is tolerable and allowing it to continue.

#3) Most of the people I interact with daily are not white. They get the same treatment from me as everyone else does.

#4) While I am white, I don't even think whites are the smartest race as evidence suggest Asians are. I also don't think there is a superior race. I just think it's different groups with a different gene pool, and some genes allow them to excel in one area and not so much in another.

Honestly, I find it really disappointing how when someone believes something differently from other people he's told "I officially hate you" as someone said a few pages back, or that I sound like I'm from "a neo-nazi forum."

 

[DanGee777]

For the record....

#1) I never treat anyone differently because of the color of their skin, nor do I think people should ever be treated differently due to the color of their skin. That's why I'm against getting a URM boost, but for getting a boost based on socioeconomic conditions. This would overall help URM since they have lower income brackets, but don't discriminate against an Asian who had to overcome the same difficulties as someone who was a URM. They should both get the same boost if they have similar situations.

I also think it is unreasonable to cater to racist patients.

#2) Most of the people I interact with daily are not white. They get the same treatment from me as everyone else does. In general I am very social and get along very well with people.

#3) While I am white, I don't even think whites are the smartest race as evidence suggest Asians are. I also don't think there is a superior race. I just think it's different groups with a different gene pool, and some genes allow them to excel in one area and not so much in another.

Honestly, I find it really disappointing how when someone believes something differently from other people he's told "I officially hate you" as someone said a few pages back, or that I sound like I'm from "a neo-nazi forum."

I will provide you with some data after you answer this question: Does it not trouble you that your assertions of racial differences in IQ have long been espoused by white supremacist groups? I can provide you with plenty of web links showing THAT connection if you'd like. Maybe after we're done, we can move on to conspiracies about the Jews running the world, and how undocumented workers are going to turn this country into Mexico in 20 years.

I apologize if being told that you sound like you're from a neo-nazi forum upsets you. But if the shoe fits, you have to wear it. Go on any white supremacist forum and you'll find pages and pages of this bilge. The Southern Poverty Law Center has done a good job of chronicling it as well in their PDF reports. You can probably find them if your university has a semi-decent online database subscription set.

 

[StBernardsRule]

I will provide you with some data after you answer this question: Does it not trouble you that your assertions of racial differences in IQ have long been espoused by white supremacist groups?

Not at all. Many groups who I have no respect for and would consider "bad" can be right about some things. Just because a group is overall detrimental to society doesn't necessarily mean all their beliefs are wrong.

I think a good example of this is the "Hitler was a Vegetarian." Hitler being a vegetarian does nothing to suggest it's wrong or right.

I can provide you with plenty of web links showing THAT connection if you'd like. Maybe after we're done, we can move on to conspiracies about the Jews running the world, and how undocumented workers are going to turn this country into Mexico in 20 years.

More typical patronizing nonsense.

I apologize if being told that you sound like you're from a neo-nazi forum upsets you.

You can apologize for acting like a jerk in the previous paragraph. Completely uncalled for when you're trying to pretend to have a serious discussion, especially to someone who is actually willing to listen and read links if you provide them.

But if the shoe fits, you have to wear it.

No. See the first thing I pointed out. I don't imagine neo-nazi's also say they don't think there is a superior race and that they'd bet on Asians being the smartest race, do they? Also, how do you even know this? Have you read neo-Nazi forums?

Go on any white supremacist forum and you'll find pages and pages of this bilge. The Southern Poverty Law Center has done a good job of chronicling it as well in their PDF reports. You can probably find them if your university has a semi-decent online database subscription set.

If you want to prove it's bilge, post your links.

 

[DanGee777]

Not at all. Many groups who I have no respect for and would consider "bad" can be right about some things. Just because a group is overall detrimental to society doesn't necessarily mean all their beliefs are wrong.

I think a good example of this is the "Hitler was a Vegetarian." Hitler being a vegetarian does nothing to suggest it's wrong or right.

Hitler was a vegetarian because he had a weak stomach, but what does he have to do with this? Neonazis who adore Hitler aren't the primary proponents of the vegetarian diet. Many of them eat meat.

Hitler was the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, however, and he did kill 12 million people based upon a deluded or manipulative belief that some races are superior to others. Intelligence testing was a big part of the research that his scientists did. They measured the sizes of Jewish brains and compared them to the brains of non-Jewish Germans. They published reports based on this selective data that in their mind, proved that Aryans were the master race. Hitler also thought of blacks as inferior, both in intelligence and in physical prowess, which is why he was so disappointed and shocked when black American Jesse Owens kicked the asses of his Aryan boys in the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Unlike in your vegetarian example (where many prominent proponents of the diet would definitely be considered more toward the left wing of the political spectrum and therefore anti-Nazi, and where I can think of no prominent neo-nazis today who endorse such a diet), the primary proponents and supportersof the Bell Curve and other racist theories today are, in fact, NEO-NAZIS.

Hardly a good example, for the reasons mentioned above. Care to try again?

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Can we please get back on topic and end the ad hominems?

 

[StBernardsRule]

Hitler was a vegetarian because he had a weak stomach, but what does he have to do with this? Neonazis who adore Hitler aren't the primary proponents of the vegetarian diet. Many of them eat meat.

Hitler was the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, however, and he did kill 12 million people based upon a deluded or manipulative belief that some races are superior to others. Intelligence testing was a big part of the research that his scientists did. They measured the sizes of Jewish brains and compared them to the brains of non-Jewish Germans. They published reports based on this selective data that in their mind, proved that Aryans were the master race. Hitler also thought of blacks as inferior, both in intelligence and in physical prowess, which is why he was so disappointed and shocked when black American Jesse Owens kicked the asses of his Aryan boys in the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Unlike in your vegetarian example (where many prominent proponents of the diet would definitely be considered more toward the left wing of the political spectrum and therefore anti-Nazi, and where I can think of no prominent neo-nazis today who endorse such a diet), the primary proponents and supportersof the Bell Curve and other racist theories today are, in fact, NEO-NAZIS.

Hardly a good example, for the reasons mentioned above. Care to try again?

This will be my last post in this thread (which I'm sure will make many of you happy), but sure I'll give it one more go.

#1) I'll agree I shouldn't have used the Hitler example, I just used it since it's usually the quickest one used to prove a point that "Just because a person is bad doesn't mean all their beliefs are bad." I should have just picked an example that had no connection to anything racial.

#2) People who believe there is a genetic difference between the races aren't all Neo-Nazis. Many people, myself included, don't even think there is a superior race, just that there are differences between the races so if one race is over or under-represented it doesn't suggest something must be wrong.

This matters to me not because I want to think "Oh man, my race scored second in intelligence, awesome!" but because when you design policy around the assumption that all groups have equal natural abilities it can easily result in resources being poorly allocated. I highly doubt abolishing affirmative action would even help whites. I think it would mostly help Asians.

#3) White supremacist AFAIK are not basing their beliefs on studies. They may cite studies to defend their racist beliefs, but their beliefs don't usually come from studies.

I'm not rooting for a race to come out as the "superior" race or anything, as I imagine most white supremacist are.

#4) Seeing as somehow I've been told I sound like a Neo-Nazi (which is ridiculous), I imagine many people who say "I agree with the Bell Curve" are more or less immediately branded as Neo-Nazi's as well. I'm sure some of the supporters of the literature are Neo-Nazis, but I highly doubt most are.

Right now we live in a society where many of the supporters in this thread who support affirmative action would say "I think if two people come from similar economic and social backgrounds, but one is African American and one is Asian, the African American should have an easier time getting into medical school. There are already enough Asians and some patients want a doctor who looks like them." I think this is extremely racist.

I think believing different groups have different traits is also "racist" using a strict definition, but as long as you believe this is based on data and you treat everyone equally I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Very clearly many people disagree with this.

 

[Marge]

Nobody has responded to my post! When it comes to undergrad GPA and MCAT, one could argue that there isn't much of a correlation between those and performance as a doctor (although I think there is some correlation there). But we also see a Black/White discrepancy in USMLE scores. I would love to hear from those who have taken Step 1, and see if they think a higher or lower score on that translates to performance as a doctor. If we're artifically creating diversity at the expense of quality of treatment, that might be a problem.

Also, is there any evidence to show that people from rural areas are more likely to practice in rural areas, and so on?