Should URMs be eliminated on amcas application?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Should URMs be emininated on amcas application?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 36.5%

  • No

    Votes: 33 63.5%
  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.
Members do not see this ad.
giphy.gif
 
Long ago when I first joined SDN I used to be worked up and concerned about these threads. The arguments suggest a misguided notion that somehow there is an objective measure of which applicants are "more deserving" of a medical school seat than another. This is not the case. Medical schools are free to choose the applicants they believe will craft the best medical school class and that will best serve the mission of the school. This includes several non-objective markers such as extracurricular interests (should someone get a boost simply because they like to paint acrylics on Sundays?), background story (should someone get a boost because they've lived 7 years in Tibet?), and supposed interests (preferring people who profess an interest in underserved communities).

Being URM, like any of these other attributes, brings with it a unique experience and perspective on healthcare and social community. Some schools may value this experience and think that they want it as a part of their class or to help serve their school mission. Other schools may not. It's up to them. To foam at the mouth over racial minorities and ignore all the other boosts applicants get is either illogical or simply malicious.
 
While diversity is the reason for the URM boost in school admissions, and I am a proponent of both racial and economic diversity, one can't deny that any boost to an applicant's chances of admissions translates to a significant advantage in life for the individual who benefits from this boost. I've met so many students on the interview trail and on this forum who are very well meaning people, but comes from such privileged backgrounds that they don't see how big a deal it is to get into medical school in economic terms. In my case, just the fact that I've gotten in means I'll be propelled from the lowest quartile of economic class in the US to the top 5% or greater in just a few short years. This is a privilege that many Americans, including myself just a few short years ago, could've only dreamed of.

Another thing I noticed during this whole app cycle is that while the med students and applicants I've met at most schools are a very racially/ethnically diverse group of people, there was very little economic diversity among them. A very disproportionately small number of people I've met actually came from working class/lower middle class backgrounds, whereas the plurality (and perhaps even majority) of Americans fall into this category. This raises the question of why diversity in the context of higher education refers to race but almost never socioeconomic class. The AAMC has recently suggested to schools to make use of economic class in their consideration of candidates, but to what degree if any this suggestion will be put into practice remains to be seen.

The last issue that I've seen that's somewhat problematic is that some schools I've kept in contact with have reduced or entirely gotten rid of their needs based aid and put those funds into merit scholarships instead. While at the same time, touting their student/institutional programs that help the underserved and train physicians who serve underserved communities on their brochures and websites. While I wouldn't go as for to say that this is hypocritical, it certainly presents an inconsistency between their missions and their actual practice. As someone from a low socioeconomic background, I can't help but feel in my gut that I'm not really welcome to these institutions. Good enough to be considered a token for their PR department, but not good enough to go to their school.
 
Last edited:
Dude. Economic diversity IS CONSIDERED. That's why there is FAP and "disadvantaged statements". Still, if SES was the only thing considered Whites would benefit the most because they make up the most poor people in the country, most on food stamps, welfare etc.
 
If URM applicants want to assert 'there is no such thing as a URM advantage', wipe clean off the table that section of the AMCAS and let's see what happens. If it truly isn't about the color of their skin, but the experiences that bring 'diversity' to the class, then these applicants should be able to write about it with no problems in their application/diversity essays.
 
bakedbeans18 said:
If URM applicants want to assert 'there is no such thing as a URM advantage', wipe clean off the table that section of the AMCAS and let's see what happens. If it truly isn't about the color of their skin, but the experiences that bring 'diversity' to the class, then these applicants should be able to write about it with no problems in their application/diversity essays.
Click to expand...


I agree with you completely, but being a URM applicant isn't solely based on race. Also, a lot of legit URM applicants didn't have the same educational opportunities that a lot of 'average joe' applicants did. With variable social factors growing up, it's really hard for a medical school to distinguish these URM individuals since most schools already have a GPA/MCAT cut off for their AMCAS app. So the applicant whose mom and dad could afford that $1500 MCAT class would most likely score higher on the MCAT compared to a student who can't afford the class. Given an equal GPA, the leverage goes to the higher mcat student, more times than not. I think the playing field should be leveled for everyone but they're so many different factors that make it hard to do so.
 
allojay said:
I agree with you completely, but being a URM applicant isn't solely based on race. Also, a lot of legit URM applicants didn't have the same educational opportunities that a lot of 'average joe' applicants did. With variable social factors growing up, it's really hard for a medical school to distinguish these URM individuals since most schools already have a GPA/MCAT cut off for their AMCAS app. So the applicant whose mom and dad could afford that $1500 MCAT class would most likely score higher on the MCAT compared to a student who can't afford the class. Given an equal GPA, the leverage goes to the higher mcat student, more times than not. I think the playing field should be leveled for everyone but they're so many different factors that make it hard to do so.
Click to expand...

See, this may be subjective now, but those people get no sympathy from me. I'm white but from poor SES background. My parents didn't have money to lend me for one of those fancy kaplan review courses, and I was really left to my own devices to study for the MCAT. This is just the tip of the iceberg for many of the financial woes my family has endured through my life. Still, as I discussed a sleuth of non-race related experiences that 'add diversity' in my 'diversity' essays, noone cared at all. In fact, I was rejected from every medical school I applied to that had a 'diversity' essay on their secondary.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Med schools do not have seats they just magically make appear. It's simple math - if you accept one student, another student does not get accepted. If there are 20,000 seats and 1 seat is taken, that is 1 less seat, regardless of what the majority is.
Click to expand...

Some minority groups will only see doctors of their own race. Medical schools want physicians to serve the communities. You need a diverse body of physicians to do that. Just because someone has the best test scores/GPA doesn't mean he/she is the best person for the physician needed.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Your post is full of ridiculous blanket statements.

1- I'm not against diversity, nor is America
3- "Without diversity, there will never be equality" - Yes, so let's start on that road by unequally giving demographics advantages. You do not right a wrong by doing another wrong. You want equality? Treat everyone equally
Click to expand...

concise.png


Never posted an image from my phone, hopefully that worked..

Anyways this is the sentiment I think you're trying to portray. My AP Gov't teacher posted this on the wall one day to spark discussion. This of course represents the greater scope of affirmative action.

In terms of the URM advantage.. Stop assuming the only thing that makes an applicant the "most qualified" are their GPAs and MCAT scores. Even among solely white applicants, I'm sure there are many on here that work harder, have stronger mental fortitude, compassion, and many other abilities that can make them a very qualified applicant. Meanwhile a friend or acquaintance of theirs, also white, lacks in these categories but had higher stats, with little else to bring to the table. If the admissions process only considered the objective stats, even these well qualified white applicants would be ignored.

Admissions seek out those with exceptional backgrounds and experiences, extensive humanitarianism, research, etc. Similarly they also value racial/ethnic backgrounds, because that too brings a great measure of diversity to a class. Statistically speaking, these URMs will likely double count for cultural and socioeconomic diversity.

As someone said above, it's a seller's market they choose whichever objective and subjective measures they value, which fit with their mission statements and whatever else.

One last thing... In the real world, as you so aptly put, the white male has the advantage, even when the minority is the same on paper. Notice how the ones benefitting the most don't complain there either?
 
Last edited:
bakedbeans18 said:
See, this may be subjective now, but those people get no sympathy from me. I'm white but from poor SES background. My parents didn't have money to lend me for one of those fancy kaplan review courses, and I was really left to my own devices to study for the MCAT. This is just the tip of the iceberg for many of the financial woes my family has endured through my life. Still, as I discussed a sleuth of non-race related experiences that 'add diversity' in my 'diversity' essays, noone cared at all. In fact, I was rejected from every medical school I applied to that had a 'diversity' essay on their secondary.
Click to expand...

Well, it's unfortunate to hear about the rejection from that school and I do acknowledge the bias that comes with the URM label. I understand your frustration and you add to my point that the playing field has to be leveled in some way or form. Whether it's changing the scope of what URM entails or getting rid of it all together, i don't know. My point is that there should be a system put in place, where applicants are given a shot, not solely based on their numbers but also on a combination of their experiences and background. It's stories like yours that sucks bc you happened to bust your butt in school and were able to put forth a respectable application, in lieu of some financial issues. But yet again, the URM tends to be given more leniency in their applications and get away with lower numbers. We can propose that the URM label be removed, but we all know that AMCAS wouldn't do it, and if it did happen, I could assume that a majority of accepted students would come from higher SES families (who have access to more resources) while students like yourself and other students from low SES families may not be given a shot, unless they score a 40/3.9+.
 
HeyNapkin said:
Some minority groups will only see doctors of their own race. Medical schools want physicians to serve the communities. You need a diverse body of physicians to do that. Just because someone has the best test scores/GPA doesn't mean he/she is the best person for the physician needed.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean I will support race-conscious admissions. I have heard every single argument for giving URMs a boost dudes and dudettes.

The Buff OP said:
SMH. 👎
82318282d74d68ad873723a3b3569e18.png
Click to expand...

Who are you, the thought police? It's a poll with two choices for a reason
 
WhittyPsyche said:
As someone said above, it's a seller's market they choose whichever objective and subjective measures they value, which fit with their mission statements and whatever else.

One last thing... In the real world, as you so aptly put, the white male has the advantage, even when the minority is the same on paper. Notice how the ones benefitting the most don't complain there either?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? It doesn't mean I support white advantage in the work place either. But like you said, it's a seller's market in the work force too, so they can set whatever rules they want right? The matter of the fact is that there is a backlash against the white culture where white males are now discriminated against and white people cannot be proud of their own race because they get labeled as white trash or racist. You cannot combat racism by setting ridiculous rules to make minorities feel better. You set rules across the board- you either let everyone celebrate their background, or you let no one.
 
You shouldn't be admitted based on something you can't control....that goes both ways. Now if you are an URM that can be very favorable to Med Schools because you might bring something different to the class.

However, I find the checkbox inherently racist itself. Who says a URM can't live in a ritzy neighborhood with 2 parents who make over 100k, go to the best schools, etc. etc.?
 
let me start off by saying that this definitely is a controversial topic, and even with numerous academic literature showing AA does NOT help minorities, the politician/administrators who benefited so much in politics by playing the race card will probably overlook them.

Having that said, some of the problems I have with pro-AA are:

1) There's a saying that “various groups would be equally represented in institutions and occupations were it not for discrimination . . . the grand fallacy of our times.” This is true because people differ in their tastes, aptitudes, and childhood experiences, in the skills they acquire from their extended families, and in the geography they must adapt to. People who have lived in cities for generations are less likely to become farmers. Those whose families have spent generations in rural areas may be less likely to move to the city and earn the higher wages associated with urban life. The children of military officers are more likely to choose military careers than the children of Quakers.

Now, could that be discrimination? Of course. But, this is still a pre-education/labor discrimination, not discrimination in labor/education itself.

Unfortunately, too many people ignore these details, preferring instead to be naive about scribing many occupational differences to discrimination.

2) They justify officially sanctioned discrimination by pointing to past wrongs—often past instances of officially sanctioned bigotry such as slavery—and claim that justice can be served only by more official discrimination, this time in their favor. But officially sanctioned discrimination harms innocent individuals, many of whom may not even have been living when past wrongs were committed.

Notice how MLK and civil rights activists in the 60s used to say this-- "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." which is clearly not what AA supporters today are saying.

It denies advancement to those who work hard, favoring instead those who can claim membership in an officially protected group. It may also serve to protect group members who behave badly. These policies exacerbate social friction. In extreme cases, as when hiring quotas were based on caste membership and Sinhalese extraction in India and Sri Lanka, the grievance caused by such unfairness can lead to civil war.

3)

I have seen supports claiming that the policies they propose are costless. But the experience of American students admitted to competitive colleges and universities under racial preferences shows that there are costs, and that some of these costs are borne by the very people whom discrimination is supposed to benefit. Some U.S. minority groups produce relatively few academically excellent students due to differences in family structure, deficiencies in K–12 education, and recent immigration.

Claiming that they seek to rectify unfair societal discrimination, higher education institutions have spent decades manipulating their admissions processes to try to make sure that entering classes contain a certain proportion of students from these minority groups. Even though the academic preparation of these preferential admissions is substantially below that of the average student admitted from other population groups, people seem to believe that these students will miraculously succeed if they matriculate.

Overmatched academically, the supposed beneficiaries of official discrimination have dropout rates that are triple those of other students. This is a tragic result given that most of them would be perfectly capable of succeeding at less demanding schools. The preferential admissions also fail bar exams and medical licensing exams at much higher rates. Those who do graduate may have their confidence eroded by questions about whether they owe their success to discriminatory policies.

4) Another problem is the possibility of ORM (Asians) actually being the victim of AA, with seats being transferred from Asians to URM, rather than from whites. There was an article published two years ago, finding that the current catchphrase used by the admissions office (i.e. emphasis on character, leadership, personality, alumni parentage, athletic ability, geographical diversity.) is actually the exact same phrases used by Harvard, Yale, Princeton in 1920s to make sure not too many Jews matriculate.

Of course you may protest that it is all for that diversity, but with AA it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate that the possible discrimination above.

5) So what's a good alternative to AA? There were good pieces of literature by Heckman addressing how early-age (pre-school) education was the most important factor in determining the skill differential people bring when they apply for jobs or college. Also, we all know too well that crappy public schools are heavily underfunded due to their locations generating little property tax revenue.

So why don't universities and government just rehaul how primary~secondary education are delivered and funded rather than trying to impose sanctioned discrimination on the tertiary level? Maybe change the property tax structure? Maybe collaborating more closely with schools in their regions to deliver quality education?

Since other country like Sweden was pretty successful with improving quality of public education without much cost, I am suspecting that the answer is probably that people (doesn't matter whether you are lib or rep) are having too much fun with race cards. One thing I am sure, however, is that admissions office is only causing more trouble by practicing AA.

To me AA just sounds like you are trying to treat the symptoms (and possibly using that as an excuse to bar Asians out), not curing what's underlying beneath the some groups' struggles. And this is why I cannot support AA.
 
For anyone who suspects a URM applicant was accepted on terms less than merit, take solace in the fact that there will be no more handouts thereafter. As far as residency goes, you either have the numbers or you don't. If your URM constituents are as unskilled/incompetent as their numbers may lead you to believe, they won't get the top residencies or the competitive specialties. If they were capable, despite their MCAT/GPA, then they will earn those residency spots on their merit, and the discussion can just end there. Sound good people? Great.
 
TheNeuroman said:
You shouldn't be admitted based on something you can't control....that goes both ways. Now if you are an URM that can be very favorable to Med Schools because you might bring something different to the class.

However, I find the checkbox inherently racist itself. Who says a URM can't live in a ritzy neighborhood with 2 parents who make over 100k, go to the best schools, etc. etc.?
Click to expand...
And there are those who fit this bill ALL THE TIME.
 
And so the flame war has begun. Earth's heroes battle to their doom, while the insidious OP looks on, laughing.

"What shall I ask next?" he asks, "Why are some colleges harder than others?" Or perhaps "Does volunteering make you a better doctor?" Maybe even, "Is it wrong to be a doctor for the money?" Yes, so many baits, so little time.
 
aiethela said:
let me start off by saying that this definitely is a controversial topic, and even with numerous academic literature showing AA does NOT help minorities, the politician/administrators who benefited so much in politics by playing the race card will probably overlook them.

Having that said, some of the problems I have with pro-AA are:

1) There's a saying that “various groups would be equally represented in institutions and occupations were it not for discrimination . . . the grand fallacy of our times.” This is true because people differ in their tastes, aptitudes, and childhood experiences, in the skills they acquire from their extended families, and in the geography they must adapt to. People who have lived in cities for generations are less likely to become farmers. Those whose families have spent generations in rural areas may be less likely to move to the city and earn the higher wages associated with urban life. The children of military officers are more likely to choose military careers than the children of Quakers.

Now, could that be discrimination? Of course. But, this is still a pre-education/labor discrimination, not discrimination in labor/education itself.

Unfortunately, too many people ignore these details, preferring instead to be naive about scribing many occupational differences to discrimination.

2) They justify officially sanctioned discrimination by pointing to past wrongs—often past instances of officially sanctioned bigotry such as slavery—and claim that justice can be served only by more official discrimination, this time in their favor. But officially sanctioned discrimination harms innocent individuals, many of whom may not even have been living when past wrongs were committed.

Notice how MLK and civil rights activists in the 60s used to say this-- "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." which is clearly not what AA supporters today are saying.

It denies advancement to those who work hard, favoring instead those who can claim membership in an officially protected group. It may also serve to protect group members who behave badly. These policies exacerbate social friction. In extreme cases, as when hiring quotas were based on caste membership and Sinhalese extraction in India and Sri Lanka, the grievance caused by such unfairness can lead to civil war.

3)

I have seen supports claiming that the policies they propose are costless. But the experience of American students admitted to competitive colleges and universities under racial preferences shows that there are costs, and that some of these costs are borne by the very people whom discrimination is supposed to benefit. Some U.S. minority groups produce relatively few academically excellent students due to differences in family structure, deficiencies in K–12 education, and recent immigration.

Claiming that they seek to rectify unfair societal discrimination, higher education institutions have spent decades manipulating their admissions processes to try to make sure that entering classes contain a certain proportion of students from these minority groups. Even though the academic preparation of these preferential admissions is substantially below that of the average student admitted from other population groups, people seem to believe that these students will miraculously succeed if they matriculate.

Overmatched academically, the supposed beneficiaries of official discrimination have dropout rates that are triple those of other students. This is a tragic result given that most of them would be perfectly capable of succeeding at less demanding schools. The preferential admissions also fail bar exams and medical licensing exams at much higher rates. Those who do graduate may have their confidence eroded by questions about whether they owe their success to discriminatory policies.

4) Another problem is the possibility of ORM (Asians) actually being the victim of AA, with seats being transferred from Asians to URM, rather than from whites. There was an article published two years ago, finding that the current catchphrase used by the admissions office (i.e. emphasis on character, leadership, personality, alumni parentage, athletic ability, geographical diversity.) is actually the exact same phrases used by Harvard, Yale, Princeton in 1920s to make sure not too many Jews matriculate.

Of course you may protest that it is all for that diversity, but with AA it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate that the possible discrimination above.

5) So what's a good alternative to AA? There were good pieces of literature by Heckman addressing how early-age (pre-school) education was the most important factor in determining the skill differential people bring when they apply for jobs or college. Also, we all know too well that crappy public schools are heavily underfunded due to their locations generating little property tax revenue.

So why don't universities and government just rehaul how primary~secondary education are delivered and funded rather than trying to impose sanctioned discrimination on the tertiary level? Maybe change the property tax structure? Maybe collaborating more closely with schools in their regions to deliver quality education?

Since other country like Sweden was pretty successful with improving quality of public education without much cost, I am suspecting that the answer is probably that people (doesn't matter whether you are lib or rep) are having too much fun with race cards. One thing I am sure, however, is that admissions office is only causing more trouble by practicing AA.

To me AA just sounds like you are trying to treat the symptoms (and possibly using that as an excuse to bar Asians out), not curing what's underlying beneath the some groups' struggles. And this is why I cannot support AA.
Click to expand...

Don't you dare misquote MLK. He DREAMED that once day things would be race blind. He KNEW that that wasn't the case in the present moment. That's why he supported race conscious policies.
 
Let me clarify this point. As you mentioned already, that was MLK's dream. I did not build my argument saying that that was MLK's starting point. I built the argument saying the original intention was not a sanctioned discrimination.

Now, It's been almost 50 years now since MLK passed away. It's a lame excuse to use MLK's "startoff point" to justify AA.
 
There is absolutely no URM students accepted not based on merit. You still have to complete medical school. I posted evidence on another thread. An MCAT over 27 indicates success on USMLE on the first pass and successful completion of the medical school curriculum. That's competent. The is no difference in failure rates after this point.

Look at Table 5.

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

Also note that URMs have the lowest acceptance rate. URMs below this threshold do not do well in Med admissions. Look at AAMC FACTS Table 25.

You cannot say oh, the Black dude got in with a 29 and a 3.6 so he's not academically qualified. That doesn't make sense.
 
Espadaleader said:
There is absolutely no URM students accepted not based on merit. You still have to complete medical school. I posted evidence on another thread. An MCAT over 27 indicates success on USMLE on the first pass and successful completion of the medical school curriculum. That's competent. The is no difference in failure rates after this point.

Look at Table 5.

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

Also note that URMs have the lowest acceptance rate. URMs below this threshold do not do well in Med admissions. Look at AAMC FACTS Table 25.

You cannot say oh, the Black dude got in with a 29 and a 3.6 so he's not academically qualified. That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting the statistics, which is just frustrating. How does not scoring the certain threshold kills your chance an indication that there is no race factor added? Think about how returns to education work. It could just be that the returns to education is much higher for URM, and that what AA does is increasing the return rate, not increasing the overall education level. That is not a good counterargument.

Look at this paper for instance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11739053
 
Rik1111 said:
This image is a false argument. People are not responsible for the poor (or good) actions of their ancestors.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the majority of white people (whether they admit it or not) do benefit from the actions of their ancestors. If America is truly equal why don't we integrate the means of acquiring wealth as opposed to integrating superficial things (i.e. movies, schools, theaters etc)?
 
Espadaleader said:
There is absolutely no URM students accepted not based on merit. You still have to complete medical school. I posted evidence on another thread. An MCAT over 27 indicates success on USMLE on the first pass and successful completion of the medical school curriculum. That's competent. The is no difference in failure rates after this point.

Look at Table 5.

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

Also note that URMs have the lowest acceptance rate. URMs below this threshold do not do well in Med admissions. Look at AAMC FACTS Table 25.

You cannot say oh, the Black dude got in with a 29 and a 3.6 so he's not academically qualified. That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

So was it a 29 and a 3.6 that got you into Duke, Columbia, Harvard, and Yale?
 
reluctantoptimism said:
Yes, but the majority of white people (whether they admit it or not) do benefit from the actions of their ancestors. If America is truly equal why don't we integrate the means of acquiring wealth as opposed to integrating superficial things (i.e. movies, schools, theaters etc)?
Click to expand...

People, raise your hand if you are white and your family history in the United States only began in the past 100 years.

:bakedbeans18 raises hand:
 
At the end of the day, med school admissions is not about being 'fair'. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether it's fair to premeds except premeds themselves.
Med school admissions is about determining the population of physicians in practice 7-10yrs down the line.
If diversity is a trait they want in that population, they will pursue it, and 'fairness' be damned.

That's the bottom line. Of course, we can sit here and argue it back and forth to try and make whichever side we support seem the most 'fair', but that's an empty, useless, argument, because that is NOT the end goal here. It's just a nice bow/distraction on the top.
 
reluctantoptimism said:
I do not understand your point; what are you trying to convey?
Click to expand...

The point is that the majority of white people in the U.S. today are not the ancestors of slave-owners and people from the 1600's-Civil War. So when you talk about white people 'benefitting from their ancestors' you're not really making a very strong argument. I'd bet good money that the vast majority of white medical school applicants are not 'sons and daughters of the Mayflower'.
 
mehc012 said:
At the end of the day, med school admissions is not about being 'fair'. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether it's fair to premeds except premeds themselves.
Med school admissions is about determining the population of physicians in practice 7-10yrs down the line.
If diversity is a trait they want in that population, they will pursue it, and 'fairness' be damned.

That's the bottom line. Of course, we can sit here and argue it back and forth to try and make whichever side we support seem the most 'fair', but that's an empty, useless, argument, because that is NOT the end goal here. It's just a nice bow/distraction on the top.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Excluding slackers I'm assuming that most hard working applicants do everything they can to gain admissions to a program. And at the end of the day, it's up to the schools to decide. This shouldn't be such a big fuss.
 
bakedbeans18 said:
The point is that the majority of white people in the U.S. today are not the ancestors of slave-owners and people from the 1600's-Civil War. So when you talk about white people 'benefitting from their ancestors' you're not really making a very strong argument. I'd bet good money that the vast majority of white medical school applicants are not 'sons and daughters of the Mayflower'.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're trying to say but you've stated something based on faulty logic. Firstly, when I say ancestors I'm speaking in a collective sense as opposed to direct ancestors. The capital which essentially birthed America was directly resultant of the work of enslaved Africans. While ALL white people may not have been directly involved with slavery I'd hazard to guess that most benefited from slave labor. In addition, blacks in this country have just recently been afforded some measures of equality, relatively speaking. While this country has made great strides, most have NOT benefited black people. For example, laws are made which specifically target black people.
 
bakedbeans18 said:
The point is that the majority of white people in the U.S. today are not the ancestors of slave-owners and people from the 1600's-Civil War. So when you talk about white people 'benefitting from their ancestors' you're not really making a very strong argument. I'd bet good money that the vast majority of white medical school applicants are not 'sons and daughters of the Mayflower'.
Click to expand...
To avoid the controversy that comes with blaming the slave-owners, lets take "benefitting from their ancestors" this way. Parents helping pay for education which in turn helps their children pay for their grand-children's education, etc... I think this is a more relevant explanation to the topic. That being said, there is no reason this would have to do with race, only SES

Also, cool it with the personal attacks on @Espadaleader. He has success, and at that caliber he was obviously qualified.
 
The ONLY way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it, stop including it in admissions to programs, stop giving scholarships specifically to URM, etc.

I am a firm believer that those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds should be assisted in things like admissions to university and scholarships, but race should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it (although I do realize that a greater percentage of those being assisted will be URM)

This whole diversity issue is getting absolutely ridiculous. What the f*** does diversity have to do with the color of your skin? People of ALL races are diverse in their life experiences.
 
Espadaleader said:
Still, if SES was the only thing considered Whites would benefit the most because they make up the most poor people in the country, most on food stamps, welfare etc.
Click to expand...

In gross number, yes, but whites are also the majority.

Found a few different numbers about food stamps, but all had a similar conclusion
Food Stamp recipients:
White 49.5%
Black 26.3%
Hispanic 20.2%
Other 4.0%

Percent of the population
White 63.7%
Black 12.2%
Hispanic 16.3%
Other 7.8%

Let's say we made a class of 100 people and based it purely on country demographics. There would be 64 whites, 12 blacks, 16 hispanics, and 8 other. Same thing based on SES, 50 whites, 26 blacks, 20 hispanics, and 4 other. Whites would lose 14 seats, other would lose 4, blacks would gain 14 and hispanics would gain 4.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhof...why-it-is-critical-to-continue-their-support/

Welfare recipients:
White 38.8%
Black 39.8%
Hispanic 15.7%
Asian 2.4%
Other 3.3%

If I did the same 100 class size, whites would lose 25 spots, other would lose 2, hispanics would not change, and blacks would gain 28.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Your claim is like me saying, as an employer, Walmart has the most number of employees receiving government assistance. Well, Walmart is also the second largest employer in the country so is it really that big of a surprise? Of course not.

If SES was the only thing considered, the overall number of whites would decrease, but it would benefit whites from low SES, some of whom may otherwise not have gotten it.
 
bakedbeans18 said:
Those laws apply to EVERYONE. What else you got?
Click to expand...

Yes, they apply to everyone but it is far from objective. For example, 28g of crack is a mandatory 5 year sentence while it takes about 500g of powder cocaine to receive the same sentence; is this because one is more dangerous than another? The answer to the aforementioned question is a resounding NO! It just so happens that crack cocaine is more prevalent in black communities. The laws aren't always objective and even when they are, punishments are often subjective in that race dictates punishment.
 
The ONLY way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it, stop including it in admissions to programs, stop giving scholarships specifically to URM, etc.

No, the only way to stop racism is to make it unacceptable for racist actions to happen. Do you really think my girlfriend is followed around in a store by a shopkeeper because there are scholarships for Latinos? That my friend is constantly asked for weed connections even though he was raised in a suburb? That it is assumed that I am wealthy even though I am the one with a Pell grant?
The argument against affirmative actions makes me wonder if it comes from delusional suburbanites.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Yeah, so? It doesn't mean I support white advantage in the work place either. But like you said, it's a seller's market in the work force too, so they can set whatever rules they want right? The matter of the fact is that there is a backlash against the white culture where white males are now discriminated against and white people cannot be proud of their own race because they get labeled as white trash or racist. You cannot combat racism by setting ridiculous rules to make minorities feel better. You set rules across the board- you either let everyone celebrate their background, or you let no one.
Click to expand...

Please point out to me where white people are not free to express pride in being white.
 
Flashfan said:
The ONLY way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it, stop including it in admissions to programs, stop giving scholarships specifically to URM, etc.

No, the only way to stop racism is to make it unacceptable for racist actions to happen. Do you really think my girlfriend is followed around in a store by a shopkeeper because there are scholarships for Latinos? That my friend is constantly asked for weed connections even though he was raised in a suburb? That it is assumed that I am wealthy even though I am the one with a Pell grant?
The argument against affirmative actions makes me wonder if it comes from delusional suburbanites.
Click to expand...

The exhaustive list of people who support AA on the grounds that it isn't fair:

Groups that don't benefit from AA.
The Wealthy.
The poor who then became wealthy and feel they are somehow responsible for this.
Objectivists.
The poor who don't believe that SES is a factor in admissions in spite of overwhelming evidence showing that it is.
Delusional suburbanites (redundant)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Should I include this research poster and preprint on my AMCAS application?
Replies
2
Views
552
pazzer2
P
I
Should I go on vacation during the application year?
Replies
4
Views
395
ILoveFelines03
I
P
How would you classify these courses on AMCAS application?
Replies
3
Views
996
PlaceMeToBe
P
H
Mistake on AMCAS
Replies
6
Views
1K
holajola
H
tameimpaler
  • Locked
How should work study be categorized on the AMCAS?
Replies
1
Views
580
LizzyM
LizzyM
Top