So whats the deal with minorities?

[MedWonk]

Genuine question: are portuguese people white? What do they put for demographics?

We're plain old European vanilla faces who tend to tan well. Like Italians, Spaniards and Greeks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[touchpause13]

We're plain old European vanilla faces who tend to tan well and have awesome hair. Like Italians, Spaniards and Greeks.

We have light and dark skinned though depending on where you are from. My mom is dark.
Also FTFY

 

[mct2762]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186610

CONCLUSIONS: MCAT scores almost double the proportion of variance in medical school grades explained by uGPAs, and essentially replace the need for uGPAs in their impressive prediction of Step scores. The MCAT performs well as an indicator of academic preparation for medical school, independent of the school-specific handicaps of uGPAs.

Yeah, for every one article you find showing a strong correlation, I can find several showing the opposite. Here is one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17198300 The predictive validity of the MCAT ranges from small to medium for both medical school performance and medical board licensing exam measures.


but honestly, I think there is way too many variables to control to show any type of correlation at all. Amount of time spent studying for each test, preparation given by undergrad institution vs medical school, outside variables during each test situation etc..

However, I have spoken to many many medical students, residents, and doctors who all have told me that the Step 1 is "easier" than the MCAT in terms of the way the material is presented and the questions asked. Every single person I have spoken with said that the tests are two completely different things. I personally went to undergrad with a girl who scored a 21 on her MCAT, got in to a "low tier" DO school, and is now in an osteopathic derm residency. I do not know what she made on her boards, but I would imagine the scores were pretty dang good to land a derm spot.

I'm sure you will say n=1...or, she is the exception not the rule....but just search SDN for MCAT USMLE correlation and you will see so many doctors post their low MCAT scores and high step scores.

 

[MedWonk]

We have light and dark skinned though depending on where you are from. My mom is dark.
Also FTFY

True. I'm on the light side of things, whereas someone I grew up with whose parents come from the same hometown is decidedly mocha in tone. As an aside, my awesome hair is rapidly fading. Maybe I'll actually look more my age this way.

 

[touchpause13]

True. I'm on the light side of things, whereas someone I grew up with whose parents come from the same hometown is decidedly mocha in tone. As an aside, my awesome hair is rapidly fading. Maybe I'll actually look more my age this way.

I'm fair skinned sans tanning which makes me extremely disappointed. I do have the traditional hair though. Very very thick and curly.

 

[gookies]

I think you assume that one can magically go from doing okay in HS and then being an all star in college. Yes, many individuals can buckle down, and excel at college, but people are coming from different foundations. Go to any top college in America and you will see kids, mostly non URMs that have taken every AP/IB class available. Is it a surprise then that when they take intro bio or Chem that they get the highest scores. You can't expect someone who was so far behind to magically catch up? I took a bunch of AP classes and it made intro classes a joke since I already knew the material. This is not to say that only URMs have a poor HS experience. But I'm sure anyone that had a solid HS can attest to the benefits it had in college. And this is why AA fails. It doesn't get people up to speed. I'm not making an excuse for people's personal failures at the college level but maybe one can understand why these discrepancies exist. I TAd several science classes in college and it was always those that had virtually no foundation before college that were at the bottom of the food chain. Was it only URMs, nope, but a big majority was. And this is at one of the best schools in America with plenty of plenty of resources. So people definitely don't have an excuse as to why they can't catch up. However, I can only imagine how it might be for some at lower tier schools that may not have the funding or resources.

No, never said be a "all-star". They would be considered a good enough applicant if they actually made that a priority. I hear it all the time when someone blames their high school for doing bad in university. Also, it is obvious everyone starts at a different level academically, that doesn't mean that individual can't work harder to pull off a decent grade. I would say most individuals have their priorities in the wrong place during their university years. There are tons of resources that can help you if you did not have any prior knowledge or a really basic understanding of it. Tutoring is available for all courses if that student really wants to learn, but it seems like most students (at least here) don't utilize those options they have. Office hours here are only crowded during exam week. If an individual was truly struggling with the material, they'd get help if it really mattered to them, right? There were only a few AP courses that were offered through a program in my city and I took a couple non-science ones. My high school wasn't all that great either. Do you see me complaining about the ones that took AP courses or are just "smart" in general scoring high? No.

 

[gookies]

As much as I would like to refute all the "less qualified URM taking ORM spots", "SES should only matter, not race", and even the above "college levels out the playing field" (LOL, lucky you if that was your experience) claims, I am not here to partake in the usual SDN whining over URM "advantage". I am not a frequent poster and would usually never waste my time even responding to such a thread, BUT in all the URM discussions, this most important element never seems to come up.

We should realize that medical schools are not seeking to "diversify" their classes at the expense of student quality. Each student has taken the proper steps to make the school feel confident that they will succeed in their program (even if that ends up not being the case). Now to my main point:

Of all the URM med school applicants I know (about 40), only 7 matriculated right out of undergrad. Yes, 7 and each of them were outstanding applicants all around, just as you would expect for the average matriculant. The other 3o something worked/are working their butts off in masters' programs, postbaccs, research, clinical jobs, and huge service commitments like TFA. More likely than not, they're doing a combination of those things to prove that they can succeed in medical school. By the time they apply, not only have they earned the numbers to back up their applications, but they have also had a variety of other important experiences much beyond the scope of the majority of pre-meds. Looking at this total package, most of them do/will get into a medical school.

However when you look up the stats for these admitted students, you just see the undergrad numbers, which often are not up to par (or they wouldn't have had to do all that other stuff before applying). I was shocked at how virtually nobody takes this into account. From my experience, this is what accounts for that "URM boost" some like to preach. DO NOT BE FOOLED, everyone who gets in has demonstrated what their medical schools wanted to see in some way or another!

I wish all people who like to make the URM "advantage" argument would truly consider this.

Uh and you're assuming ORMs don't do the same thing when they aren't considered competitive enough? Why would you try applying when you'd automatically get screened due to a low cGPA? This is why most individuals end up doing a SMP to "repair" their undergraduate GPA somehow. The whole "URM boost" is mentioned because it exists. ADCOMs on here have acknowledged it and you're delusional if you don't think it exists.

 

[Winterbourne]

Actual question: Then are Brazillians NOT considered Hispanic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

 

[asebasp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

Still think this determination should be made by individuals. I'm certainly not shaping any identity of mine based on information from Wikipedia...

 

[MDforMee]

If anyone is curious, here are the 2015 AMCAS ethnic designation options:
Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin
Argentinean
Colombian
Cuban
Dominican
Mexican/Chicano
Peruvian
Puerto Rican
Other:
Asian
Bangladeshi
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Indian
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Pakistani
Taiwanese
Vietnamese
Other:

Black or African-American
African
African American
Afro-Caribbean
Other:

White

_________________________________________________________________

I think that this is a ridiculous classification system.

What about Middle Easterners, Russians, Southwest Asians, and North Africans?

What happens if we leave the ethnic self-designation checkboxes blank?

 

[LizzyM]

Middle Eastern = white
Russians = white
Southwest Asians = Asian
North Africans = White

US Census definition:

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro"; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as "American Indian or Alaska Native" or report entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup'ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian" or provide other detailed Asian responses.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander" or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple responses, or by some combination of check boxes and other responses.

The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.

Non-Hispanic White alone persons. Individuals who responded "No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" and who reported "White" as their only entry in the race question. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and non-Hispanics separately are also available.

You can choose not to answer the race & ethnicity questions.

 

[MDforMee]

Middle Eastern = white
Russians = white
Southwest Asians = Asian
North Africans = White

US Census definition:

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro"; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as "American Indian or Alaska Native" or report entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup'ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian" or provide other detailed Asian responses.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander" or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple responses, or by some combination of check boxes and other responses.

The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.

Non-Hispanic White alone persons. Individuals who responded "No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" and who reported "White" as their only entry in the race question. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and non-Hispanics separately are also available.

You can choose not to answer the race & ethnicity questions.

I'm not Middle Eastern, but many Middle Easterners are dissatisfied with this skin color based classification system.


http://dailybruin.com/2012/04/26/_a...ow_for_more_accurate_racial_representations_/

"The University of California system has always prided itself in the diversity found throughout its campuses. Yet beneath this desire for diversity lies a misrepresentation of many ethnic groups because of broad racial and ethnic categorization found on the UC undergraduate application.

The UC system has begun to take steps in order to right this misdeed.

Thanks to an initiative led by Nairi Shirinian, senator of the UC Academic Senate of the University of California, and various Middle Eastern student groups at UC Berkeley, Middle Eastern students may finally have an opportunity to be adequately represented on the UC admittance application.

Currently, Middle Eastern students are listed as white, but the future goal is to ultimately have Middle Eastern be designated as its own independent ethnicity. Shirinian’s bill asking for support from the UC system to aid in creating the “Southwest Asia and North Africa” designation or “SWANA,” unanimously passed earlier this month. Now all that is left is for the proposal to be implemented.

Although today’s Middle Eastern students may soon be able to check off a designation that rightfully applies to them, many before them lost out on privileges, including scholarships and culturally directed academic programs, because of this misinformed broad categorization.

Middle Easterners do not identify themselves as white, Shirinian said. Yet the UC system believed it right to designate them as so.

The UC has been following a model established by the federal government, which lists Middle Easterners as a subset of white on major government forms including the census. Yet in order to fully encompass the diversity the UC system promises, it must immediately divert from this federal model.

Neglecting certain diversities has been deeply rooted in American history since the 19th century with the prominence of the “three race theory,” Shirinian said. Following this theory, the federal government espoused the belief that white, Asian and black were the only three major races; all others were relegated to second tier ethnicities.

As the federal government and, in this case, the UC system, began following this model, numerous inconsistencies became prevalent. Problems such as under-counting and misrepresentation of minorities have become a major issue because of such broad racial categorization.

The UC application utilizes statistics referring to ethnicity in order to create academic programs that pertain to minority groups. However, with Middle Easterners classified as white, programs such as Arabic, Armenian, Syrian, etc. studies are inevitably compromised.

Not only so, but because Middle Eastern students are forced to report themselves as white, the percentages of white students are severely skewed. This in turn hinders academic programs geared toward Middle Eastern students. While other minorities may be eligible for scholarships on account of their ethnicity, through the UC application, the white label has made it nearly impossible for Middle Eastern students to receive any type of ethnic-oriented scholarship or financial aid from the UC system.

The failure of the current structure is demonstrated by confusion from some students that has arisen between identification as North African American and African American.

Shirinian said North African students have begun checking off the African-American option and receiving scholarships designated for black students. Without this new “Southwest Asia and North Africa” option, students are unable to properly classify themselves and end up selecting other ethnicities, thus skewing the entire data set.

But limited racial options on the UC application impacts far more than just scholarships and under-representation ““ it speaks to the makeup of society.

Razmig Sarkissian, President of the UCLA Armenian Student Association, believes the most pressing issue in this entire movement is the psychological one.

It ruins the psyche of many Middle Eastern communities who are forced to choose an ethnicity they do not identify with, he said.

This brings up a very serious issue: Forced integration into the white category.

However, the fight for a new Middle Eastern designation does have precedent on its side. A 2007 “Count Me In” campaign aided in creating 23 new Asian American and Pacific Islander designations on the UC application.

If we follow this trend, however, will every minority group, regardless of size be allowed to have their own designation on an application? But even if it does come to that, why should that be a cause for concern?

The change is long overdue, and the UC should go even further and add every ethnicity on the list in order to allow students to enter in the ethnicity they identify with, instead of limiting them with predetermined options.

For the University of California system, which relishes in its hype of diversity, it would be the ultimate form of hypocrisy to force ethnic groups to assimilate to large race denominations rather than to rightfully allow them to be properly represented throughout all UC campuses."


Even if the census does designate "White" people as belonging to the ethnic backgrounds you described, and AMCAS goes along with it, I don't see how not knowing this information can be useful to medical school admissions personnel.

There are many communities in this country that have significant Middle Eastern, Russian, and North African populations that also have low SES and/or are medically underserved, and if one of the main goals of ethnicity-based admissions is to increase providers that practice in these same areas, then I disagree with using a blanket skin tone descriptor, and not just because its fallacious.

Besides, haven't we moved beyond relegating people to skin color descriptions? Are there white only drinking fountains in medical schools? Seriously, though. I wouldn't ever call an Asian person Yellow, or a Hispanic person Brown. That marginalizes their ethnicities. Respect and appreciation of people's backgrounds goes a long way.

 

[LizzyM]

I'There are many communities in this country that have significant Middle Eastern, Russian, and North African populations that also have low SES and/or are medically underserved, and if one of the main goals of ethnicity-based admissions is to increase providers that practice in these same areas, then I disagree with using a blanket skin tone descriptor, and not just because its fallacious.

We also ask if one has language skills at the native or near-native level and that can certainly be used to select applicants who may be inclined to serve underserved populations who are non-English speaking.

Besides, haven't we moved beyond relegating people to skin color descriptions? Are there white only drinking fountains in medical schools? Seriously, though. I wouldn't ever call an Asian person Yellow, or a Hispanic person Brown. That marginalizes their ethnicities. Respect and appreciation of people's backgrounds goes a long way.

I am old enough to remember when white people were referred to as Caucasian and blacks were Negro. Would you prefer to go back to those terms? There is more than skin color in the description of the different races including the texture of the hair, shape of the eyes, facial bones, nose, and lips. In large part, it is a social construct and the characteristic that is most quickly discerned is skin color.

 

[AndM17]

As an applicant who completed the admissions process and I enjoy some of the humorous situations produced by the "underrepresented minorities" question, esp. relative to the original question. We are is a strange limbo between a desire to use (pseudo-scientific) racial categorization in "trying to correct" the results of racism/segregation and to move towards a "better" way of classifying people. For example, I have met Argentinians of German/Italian origin, who are technically "Hispanic" (in the census categorization of being Spanish speakers) but not in the typically understood sense of underprivileged children of manual laborers, who by the way have a skin color/appearance similar to mainstream "White" Americans. Similarly, I immigrated from Europe to the USA, and I feel that sociologically speaking there is a difference between me and those whose great-great-great-grandparents came from Europe in the 19th century. This difference, however, appears nowhere in statistics. Also, as a European-American I love how AMCAS/the Census provides for a lot of sub-categories to Asian or Hispanic but not European. Anyone familiar with the history of Europe/Middle East/North Africa (some quite tragic) would see some black humor finding French and Algerians lumped into the same "White" category.

I am not a frequent poster on SDN nor an expert in education, but I would like to refine the original question, "So what's the deal with minorities" to the following qeustions: what is the value of the current system of dealing with underrepresented minorities in MD applications? Does the current admissions system actually provide better health care for the most vulnerable in the USA, or is it simply a political gesture? Is our current system too stuck in the "old" Black/White idea of race relations to deal with the new kind of diversity we are now beginning to see in the USA? Is there a better way to deal with this that does not involve questionable racial/ethnic classification systems?

 

[Mr Interesting]

what is the value of the current system of dealing with underrepresented minorities in MD applications? Does the current admissions system actually provide better health care for the most vulnerable in the USA

Honest question, did you read the thread before you asked this?

 

[MDforMee]

We also ask if one has language skills at the native or near-native level and that can certainly be used to select applicants who may be inclined to serve underserved populations who are non-English speaking.


I am old enough to remember when white people were referred to as Caucasian and blacks were Negro. Would you prefer to go back to those terms? There is more than skin color in the description of the different races including the texture of the hair, shape of the eyes, facial bones, nose, and lips. In large part, it is a social construct and the characteristic that is most quickly discerned is skin color.

I disagree.

The new president of the uc system, Janet napolitiano (sp.?) disagrees, too.

I agree with the previous poster that this thread basically sucks.

 

[LizzyM]

I disagree.

The new president of the uc system, Janet napolitiano (sp.?) disagrees, too.

I agree with the previous poster that this thread basically sucks.

"[To get a well-rounded student body] the only thing we can't consider is race, and that seems to me wrong.- UC President Janet Napolitano

"The UCs have done a very good job, post-Proposition 209, in looking at factors that have a big correlation with race and ethnicity, like socioeconomic status. Academic achievement is No. 1, but we look at other things to get a well-rounded student body. The only thing we can't consider is race, and that seems to me wrong. We're still not seeing enrollment numbers for the African American population that we should. We need to be focused on outreach, working to increase those."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0430-morrison-napolitano-20140430-column.html#page=1


We are on the same page... we need to consider race. You seem to have a problem with how we categorize people by race whether we lump (4 broad categories) or split (dozens of different ethnic groups).

 

[shenellica]

I'm not Middle Eastern, but many Middle Easterners are dissatisfied with this skin color based classification system.


http://dailybruin.com/2012/04/26/_a...ow_for_more_accurate_racial_representations_/

"The University of California system has always prided itself in the diversity found throughout its campuses. Yet beneath this desire for diversity lies a misrepresentation of many ethnic groups because of broad racial and ethnic categorization found on the UC undergraduate application.

The UC system has begun to take steps in order to right this misdeed.

Thanks to an initiative led by Nairi Shirinian, senator of the UC Academic Senate of the University of California, and various Middle Eastern student groups at UC Berkeley, Middle Eastern students may finally have an opportunity to be adequately represented on the UC admittance application.

Currently, Middle Eastern students are listed as white, but the future goal is to ultimately have Middle Eastern be designated as its own independent ethnicity. Shirinian’s bill asking for support from the UC system to aid in creating the “Southwest Asia and North Africa” designation or “SWANA,” unanimously passed earlier this month. Now all that is left is for the proposal to be implemented.

Although today’s Middle Eastern students may soon be able to check off a designation that rightfully applies to them, many before them lost out on privileges, including scholarships and culturally directed academic programs, because of this misinformed broad categorization.

Middle Easterners do not identify themselves as white, Shirinian said. Yet the UC system believed it right to designate them as so.

The UC has been following a model established by the federal government, which lists Middle Easterners as a subset of white on major government forms including the census. Yet in order to fully encompass the diversity the UC system promises, it must immediately divert from this federal model.

Neglecting certain diversities has been deeply rooted in American history since the 19th century with the prominence of the “three race theory,” Shirinian said. Following this theory, the federal government espoused the belief that white, Asian and black were the only three major races; all others were relegated to second tier ethnicities.

As the federal government and, in this case, the UC system, began following this model, numerous inconsistencies became prevalent. Problems such as under-counting and misrepresentation of minorities have become a major issue because of such broad racial categorization.

The UC application utilizes statistics referring to ethnicity in order to create academic programs that pertain to minority groups. However, with Middle Easterners classified as white, programs such as Arabic, Armenian, Syrian, etc. studies are inevitably compromised.

Not only so, but because Middle Eastern students are forced to report themselves as white, the percentages of white students are severely skewed. This in turn hinders academic programs geared toward Middle Eastern students. While other minorities may be eligible for scholarships on account of their ethnicity, through the UC application, the white label has made it nearly impossible for Middle Eastern students to receive any type of ethnic-oriented scholarship or financial aid from the UC system.

The failure of the current structure is demonstrated by confusion from some students that has arisen between identification as North African American and African American.

Shirinian said North African students have begun checking off the African-American option and receiving scholarships designated for black students. Without this new “Southwest Asia and North Africa” option, students are unable to properly classify themselves and end up selecting other ethnicities, thus skewing the entire data set.

But limited racial options on the UC application impacts far more than just scholarships and under-representation ““ it speaks to the makeup of society.

Razmig Sarkissian, President of the UCLA Armenian Student Association, believes the most pressing issue in this entire movement is the psychological one.

It ruins the psyche of many Middle Eastern communities who are forced to choose an ethnicity they do not identify with, he said.

This brings up a very serious issue: Forced integration into the white category.

However, the fight for a new Middle Eastern designation does have precedent on its side. A 2007 “Count Me In” campaign aided in creating 23 new Asian American and Pacific Islander designations on the UC application.

If we follow this trend, however, will every minority group, regardless of size be allowed to have their own designation on an application? But even if it does come to that, why should that be a cause for concern?

The change is long overdue, and the UC should go even further and add every ethnicity on the list in order to allow students to enter in the ethnicity they identify with, instead of limiting them with predetermined options.

For the University of California system, which relishes in its hype of diversity, it would be the ultimate form of hypocrisy to force ethnic groups to assimilate to large race denominations rather than to rightfully allow them to be properly represented throughout all UC campuses."


Even if the census does designate "White" people as belonging to the ethnic backgrounds you described, and AMCAS goes along with it, I don't see how not knowing this information can be useful to medical school admissions personnel.

There are many communities in this country that have significant Middle Eastern, Russian, and North African populations that also have low SES and/or are medically underserved, and if one of the main goals of ethnicity-based admissions is to increase providers that practice in these same areas, then I disagree with using a blanket skin tone descriptor, and not just because its fallacious.

Besides, haven't we moved beyond relegating people to skin color descriptions? Are there white only drinking fountains in medical schools? Seriously, though. I wouldn't ever call an Asian person Yellow, or a Hispanic person Brown. That marginalizes their ethnicities. Respect and appreciation of people's backgrounds goes a long way.

This is not a new issue. Race is a social construct and the categories and definitions are constantly changing. Maybe in the future Middle Eastern people will get their own category. Just take a look at the options for race on the US census. They are ALWAYS changing. We used to have Negro, quadroon, octoroon. When Chinese men first moved to the Mississippi Delta they were categorized as Negro in the census. From your response it also seems like you might be confused about the definition of race vs. ethnicity. You should look it up or take a sociology course.

 

[MDforMee]

This is not a new issue. Race is a social construct and the categories and definitions are constantly changing. Maybe in the future Middle Eastern people will get their own category. Just take a look at the options for race on the US census. They are ALWAYS changing. We used to have Negro, quadroon, octoroon. When Chinese men first moved to the Mississippi Delta they were categorized as Negro in the census. From your response it also seems like you might be confused about the definition of race vs. ethnicity. You should look it up or take a sociology course.

I'm stating an opinion held by thousands of Middle Eastern UC students that goes against skin color designations, and supporting it with good discussion topics; and I'm not even Middle Eastern.

If you would like to share for us how marginalizing Middle Eastern, Russian, and North African medical students will serve a greater purpose, I'm all ears.

Here's a group of Middle Eastern medical students at UC Davis that started an outreach association to spread the word about their ethnic backgrounds as it relates to medical diversity:
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/diversity/memsa.html

They didn't call themselves White, either. Maybe you should call the census bureau and rat them out for making a case for being recognized as non-White, and urging tolerance and professional respect among their colleagues based on their ethnic backgrounds.

Surely, the law precedents from 1800 something that you used in your original post should hold jurisprudence.

 

[touchpause13]

The concepts of race are constantly changing. When my mother was a girl she wasn't considered white, while I am.

Our categories are dynamic, biased, and basically arbitrary. That doesn't mean that race isn't important though. Last time I checked, no matter how hard people may want to believe, racism isn't dead by a long shot. Cultural ideas take many generations to die, no matter how unjust they are. And if schools want to take into account race as part of their mission in an attempt to serve a diverse population, that's their right.

 

[Dr Lyss]

I don't even remember what I got on my MCAT, I think it was a 26 or 27 (that just tells you how much it matters).

I cried when I saw it because I thought that no med school would take me. I had a friend, also URM, same MCAT score, went to the same undergrad, from the same town. I got accepted into a bunch of amazing schools, she only got accepted to one. We were both URMs from a good undergrad, decent gpa, bad MCAT. What was the difference? I had demonstrated a commitment to serving underrepresented communities over my whole life and showed a clear interest, she didn't. It's not just about numbers people. It's about diversity in every sense. It's why some schools like nontrads or people that have traveled or people with lots of money or people with musical talent... But you can't look at someone and tell what they have that makes them unique. URMs "wear" one part of their uniqueness for the world to see. Let it go, get over it. The attrition rate for medical school as a whole and for those with low numbers is extremely low compared to other graduate schools. Clearly people can handle the work otherwise Adcoms wouldn't bother and HBCs wouldn't exist.

Oh and btw, in case you were curious, I went to an awesome medical school, I thought I would fail every class but I did extremely well and got my top choice for residency. All of my friends that I knew had mediocre MCAT scores nailed their step exams too. We worked hard, but everyone did.the hardest part truly is getting in.

 

[Dr Lyss]

The concepts of race are constantly changing. When my mother was a girl she wasn't considered white, while I am.

Our categories are dynamic, biased, and basically arbitrary. That doesn't mean that race isn't important though. Last time I checked, no matter how hard people may want to believe, racism isn't dead by a long shot. Cultural ideas take many generations to die, no matter how unjust they are. And if schools want to take into account race as part of their mission in an attempt to serve a diverse population, that's their right.

Racism is alive and well in this country. It's just taken on a different face. People don't show their ignorance openly anymore because it's not socially acceptable so now it's become this subtle, subconscious prejudice that creeps in and only comes out behind closed doors around people you feel safe with, people like you.

 

[Gifted Hands]

Racism is alive and well in this country. It's just taken on a different face. People don't show their ignorance openly anymore because it's not socially acceptable so now it's become this subtle, subconscious prejudice that creeps in and only comes out behind closed doors around people you feel safe with, people like you.

Case in point: Donald Sterling

 

[Goro]

Y'know, no matter the designation or the skin color, people whose ancestors are from the Mediterranean littoral and western/south/central Asia are ORM in Medicine. So you have a problem with labels, talk to AAMC and the US Census Bureau.

I'm stating an opinion held by thousands of Middle Eastern UC students that goes against skin color designations, and supporting it with good discussion topics; and I'm not even Middle Eastern.

If you would like to share for us how marginalizing Middle Eastern, Russian, and North African medical students will serve a greater purpose, I'm all ears.

Here's a group of Middle Eastern medical students at UC Davis that started an outreach association to spread the word about their ethnic backgrounds as it relates to medical diversity:
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/diversity/memsa.html

They didn't call themselves White, either. Maybe you should call the census bureau and rat them out for making a case for being recognized as non-White, and urging tolerance and professional respect among their colleagues based on their ethnic backgrounds.

Surely, the law precedents from 1800 something that you used in your original post should hold jurisprudence.

 

[MDforMee]

" We are on the same page... we need to consider race. You seem to have a problem with how we categorize people by race whether we lump (4 broad categories) or split (dozens of different ethnic groups).

Y'know, no matter the designation or the skin color, people whose ancestors are from the Mediterranean littoral and western/south/central Asia are ORM in Medicine. So you have a problem with labels, talk to AAMC and the US Census Bureau.

Two Adcoms reply to me in one thread. Well, this is quite the day, for me. Since you're both here, it's nice to know that I'm not on your ignore lists. And since I'm not, and because you're probably reading this, I'm glad that this topic is finally brought up by the both of you.

Way back on page 1 you'll notice that I asked an URM medical student which ethnic backgrounds Hispanics can mark on the AMCAS application, here:

What geographic background checkboxes can Hispanics mark on the AMCAS and AACOMAS applications?

... and was replied to with:

You're choices are: Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Other Hispanic if memory serves me right.

What I'm talking about is what's glaring at me:
that things have apparently changed in the last few years with the AMCAS ethnic designations.

Notice that I posted the apparently new AMCAS ethnic designations, myself, just a few posts up. There looks to be a ton of new ethnic backgrounds added for Hispanics. AMCAS isn't operating on some modus operandi from the census bureau. They're systematically adding ethnic background categories, seems to me. Who's to say that they can't add more?

Who's also to say that AMCAS won't pay attention to groups marginalized by their 1980's classification system, either? Like the European immigrant, above, or to the tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and North African students in this country? Or pay attention to other inefficiencies in using race based categorical descriptions of medical school applicants? Their system sucks, IMO, and it even seems perjorative the way that every other ethnicity gets to mark their ethnic background EXCEPT for whites. That's just ridiculous.

Notice, too, that other threads on this forum look like heaping piles now with this new ethnic classification system because of the alleged, phantom anti-Asian discrimination BS. Oh, I don't know, let's see, here... if Asians are now able to mark if they're Southeast Asian, or belonging to other Pan Asian groups (non-East Asian), then interview stats for these ethnicities should destroy many of the racist allegation arguments at the point of entry I've seen on this forum, and by groups like Asian (Chinese) senators from California that struck down a re-institution of Affirmative Action in California based on the premise that their students would be discriminated against if such a system were in place. For instance, when UC Berkeley finally added categorial admittance data for their applicant vs matriculant pools using Asian subdesignations, like Cambodian, Hmong, Vietnamese, etc, it dispelled a lot of things related to ethnicity based admissions policies.

Similarly, the same logic can be applied to Caucasians and Middle Easterners if a new classification system could be created.

So, why am I posting all of this now, you say? Well, it's because the United States has a huge rural population, and in California, for example, 20% of the population live in rural areas, but only 10% of doctors practice, rurally. Combined with low SES and educational access problems afflicting these same areas, like rural Northern California, the Pacific Northwest, the plains states, Appalachia, etc with staggering numbers of low SES whites in an inverse proportionality with numbers of medical providers, I'm hoping that people will see a bigger picture in the future than just ethnic background. This is only one example of how race based admissions fails in its mission to provide practitioners to medically underserved areas.

There's more to this issue than race, and the AAMC seems like they're putting their heads in the sand. Don't marginalize me, bro.

 

[Goro]

Tell it them. There is a box to mark "Disadvantaged" and there are schools that give preference to geographic concerns. So, for example, a Chinese or Syrian kid growing up in Cairo, IL will have a leg up on admissions to SIU. Ditto someone from Scranton, PA applying to TCMC.

There's more to this issue than race, and the AAMC seems like they're putting their heads in the sand.[/QUOTE]

 

[LizzyM]

I have never filled out the AMCAS application. I don't know what race/ethnicity choices are on the application. I don't have a say in the choices displayed on the application. As @Goro said, you need to take this up with AMCAS and the US Census bureau. Furthermore, Russians, North Africans and Middle Easterners are NOT underrepresented in medicine (URM) in any region I'm familiar with so whether you lump or split it isn't going to matter any more than if you were to lump or split applicants of Polish or Scottish ancestry.

 

[moop]

Can we stop pls

 

[FrenchyM.D/D.O]

Hey I was born and raised in Paris, France and I definitely understand where you are coming from. I absolutely agree with the above quote. In 1962, France went to war against Algeria (MANY died on both sides) and 'til this day, it is still a very sensitive topic in France. To put Algerians and French in the same boat is quite hilarious to me. Although, I understand where you are coming from, many African countries fought/hated each other but they are all still considered "Black" to us even though they have their differences. Do I make sense? Furthermore, I think whether one is A.A, African, Caribbean (Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad, etc..) or Hispanic (only a few countries) or a mix of all these. Bottom line is, you are a U.R.M which is I believe the only reason why they ask about your race. If you are ANYTHING else, bottom line is you are an ORM. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Quizlet04]

My peeps used to have official quotas. That is how ORM, yet URM, we are.

 

[DermViser]

The attrition rate for medical school as a whole and for those with low numbers is extremely low compared to other graduate schools. Clearly people can handle the work otherwise Adcoms wouldn't bother and HBCs wouldn't exist.

That is bc the medical school pushes students thru no matter what to extract more cash and it looks bad on the school. That will definitely change now with increasing unmatched rates: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april2014/378174/viewpoint.html

 

[Miao]

Check your race and ethnicity just as you would on the US census. List your languages just as you would if you applying for a job. Each medical school decides, based on the demographics of the population it serves with patient care, who is URM. If a school wants to count you, then it will.

The proportion of black applicants who get admitted is about equall or slightly less than the proportion of white applicants who get admitted. Ditto Hispanic and Asian applicants. For a given combination of GPA and MCAT, the more rare applicants (black & hispanic) have a better chance of being chosen than Asian or white applicants with the same numbers. The thing is, don't look at the percentages, look at the numbers. The number of URM applicants at a given GPA/MCAT are sometimes very, very small and they are highly valued in a med school class because of the diversity they lend to the student body.

/thread.

Uh, do you think it will matter if you are Chinese?
Because I am.
I just want to become a veterinarian, and study birds.

 

[Miao]

Not really.

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

Its a binary. You are either competent or not. The student with a 27 MCAT and 3.0 GPA has a 1.9% chance of failure.

There is only one level of baseline competency.

I think it matters about you. What you want to be. How hard you are going to work.
Habits can be broken. Genes can not.

 

[Miao]

I think he burned you there plumazul. Although it probably won't be the first time for you today as San Antonio is going to take a beat-down from Portland in a few hours.

☆〜（ゝ。∂）
I'm also sorta known for burns.

Because I always seem to have one(JK)

 

[Miao]

Portuguese speak Portuguese..

Thank you! I never knew that!

*eye roll*

 

[Miao]

I would say it is more of a beige color

If you are Chinese, but were raised in America, but you speak both languages, what race do you count as?

 

[Miao]

*Disclaimer - my personal experience, I am a disadvantaged minority, just not URM*

I can see why diversity is needed and how individuals that are considered URM are unconsciously looked down upon by their peers, especially in the science courses. Individuals automatically assume you're not competent to do the coursework and would rather not pair up with you if a team was involved. Stereotypes exist in all groups, some more negative than others. I also can see how the majority think URMs come from bad, poor environments, which restricts them to resources. What I don't see is why individuals use that excuse during their university years.

I do acknowledge that our university education isn't perfect (nothing is), but it creates a better, or more equal (I'd say) playing field amongst every group. I say this because there are resources (at least on my campus and pretty sure most do) that are geared toward helping and promoting minority undergraduates to pursue health-related careers. You also have access to the same resources everyone else on campus has, plus those programs specifically geared to minorities. I guess I see it mostly as an excuse if you still say you're lacking the resources at the university level. I don't think individuals look or try hard enough to look for these resources that are offered to minorities, because they do exist and I'm grateful because of them.

Also, as you can see, knowing that certain groups are more likely to get in with the same stats compared to other groups makes the whole discrimination thing even worse (even though the whole idea is to diversify, which is good), but most ORMs see this as "unfair", since acceptance should be based on merit and not having a "boost" due to your skin color. A URM that gets into a top medical school, or even any medical school will always be looked down upon and individuals will assume they were accepted due to their skin color. Discrimination will always exist as long as mankind is alive (IMO). I guess the only thing plausible thing to do is to, "Let 'em talk, let 'em hate." I realize there are a lot of things that are "unfair", but these are things I can't really change, so I try not to worry too much about it. Then there are things I can influence, which I try my best to. In the end, just do you and be successful (in whatever way you interpret success as).

So am I

 

[Miao]

If anyone is curious, here are the 2015 AMCAS ethnic designation options:
Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish origin
Argentinean
Colombian
Cuban
Dominican
Mexican/Chicano
Peruvian
Puerto Rican
Other:
Asian
Bangladeshi
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Indian
Indonesian
Japanese
Korean
Laotian
Pakistani
Taiwanese
Vietnamese
Other:

Black or African-American
African
African American
Afro-Caribbean
Other:

White
?!?! Shouldn't Chinese(moi), Japanese, Korean, and some other of those count as Asian?
_________________________________________________________________

I think that this is a ridiculous classification system.

What about Middle Easterners, Russians, Southwest Asians, and North Africans?

What happens if we leave the ethnic self-designation checkboxes blank?

 

[Miao]

Can we stop pls

OmNom gets me every time....

sigh...

 

[orangeman25]

This doesn't happen though. I'm from rural Wisconsin (i.e. a town with a population <1000 in the middle of nowhere) and this really affected my upbringing. Even though I'm not very interested in rural medicine, the lack of resources, guidance, and opportunities in an environment like this set me back way behind my peers when I entered college.

Whoa that's actually a really cool perspective to have...being from such a small town. Very neat.

 

[Xenoblade]

Middle Eastern = white
Russians = white
Southwest Asians = Asian
North Africans = White

US Census definition:

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro"; or report entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. This category includes people who indicate their race as "American Indian or Alaska Native" or report entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup'ik, or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian" or provide other detailed Asian responses.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander" or provide other detailed Pacific Islander responses.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple responses, or by some combination of check boxes and other responses.

The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Percentages for the various race categories add to 100 percent, and should not be combined with the percent Hispanic.

Non-Hispanic White alone persons. Individuals who responded "No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" and who reported "White" as their only entry in the race question. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and non-Hispanics separately are also available.

You can choose not to answer the race & ethnicity questions.

I am confused where Hawaiians and pacific islanders are on this webpage:

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/app...mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html

Did they get lumped with Asians? Or are they in the other category with Hispanics, blacks, and etc.?

 

[ichor]

As much as I would like to refute all the "less qualified URM taking ORM spots", "SES should only matter, not race", and even the above "college levels out the playing field" (LOL, lucky you if that was your experience) claims, I am not here to partake in the usual SDN whining over URM "advantage". I am not a frequent poster and would usually never waste my time even responding to such a thread, BUT in all the URM discussions, this most important element never seems to come up.

We should realize that medical schools are not seeking to "diversify" their classes at the expense of student quality. Each student has taken the proper steps to make the school feel confident that they will succeed in their program (even if that ends up not being the case). Now to my main point:

Of all the URM med school applicants I know (about 40), only 7 matriculated right out of undergrad. Yes, 7 and each of them were outstanding applicants all around, just as you would expect for the average matriculant. The other 3o something worked/are working their butts off in masters' programs, postbaccs, research, clinical jobs, and huge service commitments like TFA. More likely than not, they're doing a combination of those things to prove that they can succeed in medical school. By the time they apply, not only have they earned the numbers to back up their applications, but they have also had a variety of other important experiences much beyond the scope of the majority of pre-meds. Looking at this total package, most of them do/will get into a medical school.

However when you look up the stats for these admitted students, you just see the undergrad numbers, which often are not up to par (or they wouldn't have had to do all that other stuff before applying). I was shocked at how virtually nobody takes this into account. From my experience, this is what accounts for that "URM boost" some like to preach. DO NOT BE FOOLED, everyone who gets in has demonstrated what their medical schools wanted to see in some way or another!

I wish all people who like to make the URM "advantage" argument would truly consider this.

Are you REALLY implying that all that "extra" stuff done after not getting into med school is exclusive to URM? That there's no such thing as a ORM not getting into med school so they do a post-bac to stay competitive? That the URM boost results not from the how med schools will accept URM with below after stats because they explicitly want URM but because only URM keeping fighting after being rejected?

REALLY? This is the most non-sensical thing I've read all week (besides this thread's title).

 

[LizzyM]

I am confused where Hawaiians and pacific islanders are on this webpage:

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/app...mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html

Did they get lumped with Asians? Or are they in the other category with Hispanics, blacks, and etc.?

They aren't on the page. AAMC only displays "selected" races and the Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders were not selected. It is a very small population ranging from 119 to 215 applicants per year. See tables 9, 13 and 14. https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/

 

[Espadaleader]

Are you REALLY implying that all that "extra" stuff done after not getting into med school is exclusive to URM? That there's no such thing as a ORM not getting into med school so they do a post-bac to stay competitive? That the URM boost results not from the how med schools will accept URM with below after stats because they explicitly want URM but because only URM keeping fighting after being rejected?

REALLY? This is the most non-sensical thing I've read all week (besides this thread's title).

No. The poster is saying that most URMs have done extra things beyond undergrad on top of their undergrad career.

 

[DermViser]

"[To get a well-rounded student body] the only thing we can't consider is race, and that seems to me wrong.- UC President Janet Napolitano

"The UCs have done a very good job, post-Proposition 209, in looking at factors that have a big correlation with race and ethnicity, like socioeconomic status. Academic achievement is No. 1, but we look at other things to get a well-rounded student body. The only thing we can't consider is race, and that seems to me wrong. We're still not seeing enrollment numbers for the African American population that we should. We need to be focused on outreach, working to increase those."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0430-morrison-napolitano-20140430-column.html#page=1

We are on the same page... we need to consider race. You seem to have a problem with how we categorize people by race whether we lump (4 broad categories) or split (dozens of different ethnic groups).

So apparently at the UCs, they don't think having Asians counts as diversity. At least they're honest.

 

[LizzyM]

Asians are < 12% of the k-12 population in California but 36% of the UC enrollment.
Latinos are >52% of the K-12 population but 27% of UC enrollment.
Blacks are 6.3% of the k-12 population but 4.2% of the UC enrollment.

Whites are 25% of the K-12 population and 28% of the UC enrollment.

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2013/131003_Rising_to_the_Challenge_SFF.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ols-could-consider-race-gender-in-admissions/