Stanford, Columbia, Penn Medical Schools Expand the Exodus From U.S. News Ranking

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
My apologies on the mix-up and I have fixed it 🙂

Regarding the inter-twined race and SE status, not all underrepresented races can benefit if the race box is checked, and that is the problem of relying on race- it is self-reported and there is not a box for some of the races. Please see below for an extract of the Supreme court hearings:

“Justice Brett Kavanaugh, asked the UNC counsel, Ryan Park how applicants with Middle-East origins are supposed to identify themselves on the University of North Carolina’s applications since there isn’t a specific box for the Middle Eastern ethnicity. Park responded by saying the school’s applications allow applicants to specify their country of origin in the text even though there is no race box.

“But if they honestly check one of the boxes, which one are they supposed to check?” Kavanaugh asked.

Park responded: “I—I do not—do not know the answer to that question. What I can say is that if a person from a Middle Eastern country self-discloses their country of origin, it would be considered in the same way that we consider any box that matches, you know, one of the boxes that’s available in the common application, which is it would be an individualized holistic analysis.”

Infact, the US census bureau and DOE classifies Middle East as “ Caucasian” / “White” race. However if Ryan Park had given that answer to Kavanaugh’s question, it would only further undercut the argument made by affirmative action advocates—even though most Middle Easterners do not fit inside the Anglo-Saxon category typically used to describe white people. Obviously universities and med schools don’t want to admit this since if they do so, they would also have to admit that the vague racial categories used by colleges across the country force applicants into narrow boxes that don’t accurately reflect their backgrounds or experiences.
Let us then eliminate this “pseudo” box for race and actually evaluate the applicants from their stats and stories, while factoring in their SE status.
I am 100% in agreement that the way the US census classifies race is lacking. We should most definitely have a MENA category, like the UK does. But your solution to needing to improve it is completely doing away with it, which would likely exacerbate existing issues and make racial discrimination much easier based on factors such as name, undergraduate institution, types of community service, etc.

Let's push for better granularity among racial categories, not the elimination of collecting important demographic data. Nothing is perfect, so by your logic we should also get rid of gender and likely some other demographic identifiers as well.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I do agree racism still exists but varies based on economic status. As an immigrant I have felt the racism as well but not at same level as African Americans. My issue is instead of assessing root cause, we are trying band aid solutions which cause more resentment
You're viewing it as a bandaid fix, when in reality it is but one component of a variety of steps (both by schools and by society at-large) that have to be taken in tandem.

And regarding your comment about resentment, surely you don't think medical schools *not* doing anything to address racial disparities in admission would cause less resentment? Lol.

There will be resentment either way, because people will always feel slighted when they don't get what they want. But there is a demonstrated societal need for more physicians from historically excluded groups, and evidence that their presence improves health outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I am 100% in agreement that the way the US census classifies race is lacking. We should most definitely have a MENA category, like the UK does. But your solution to needing to improve it is completely doing away with it, which would likely exacerbate existing issues and make racial discrimination much easier based on factors such as name, undergraduate institution, types of community service, etc.

Let's push for better granularity among racial categories, not the elimination of collecting important demographic data. Nothing is perfect, so by your logic we should also get rid of gender and likely some other demographic identifiers as well.
I am 💯 in agreement in need of granularity and clarity with respect to the entire admissions process!
However , I have to respectfully state that we can never attain that with “Race”.
It is self-reported and allows too much latitude with reporting and no actual verification process exists unlike SE status which can be confirmed with W-2/ parental income and wealth status etc.
Needless to state, do we have any accounting of how much % of people are actually who they state they are on the “race box”, including. our politicians who have checked the wrong race box to game the system ( Did Elizabeth Warren get any consequences for her egregious error in choosing the “native american” box and get into the ivy league law school by depriving another eligible candidate? Of course, not and Harvard continues to argue for that very same race box!)

Case-in-point:

“Justice Samuel Alito pressed North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park on this latter point, asking Park when an applicant could rightly be considered a minority according to the University of North Carolina. If an applicant is half-black and half-white, can he claim to be black? Or what about an applicant whose great-grandmother was Native American? Can she claim to be Native American?

Park responded by saying the school depends on self-reporting and generally trusts that what the applicant reports is the truth.

Alito pressed forward: “Well, I identify as an American Indian because I’ve always been told that some ancestor back in the old days was an American Indian,” he said.

Park responded: “In that circumstance, it would be very unlikely that that person was telling the truth.”

But neither UNC nor Harvard admissions ever explained to the court how the schools would determine or dispute these claims.
This is fundamentally because there is no definitive definition of race, nor is there an agreed upon standard-at least, not when it comes to race conscious college admissions. This is my argument for eliminating race box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Members don't see this ad :)
I am 💯 in agreement in need of granularity and clarity with respect to the entire admissions process!
However , I have to respectfully state that we can never attain that with “Race”.
It is self-reported and allows too much latitude with reporting and no actual verification process exists unlike SE status which can be confirmed with W-2/ parental income and wealth status etc.
Needless to state, do we have any accounting of how much % of people are actually who they state they are on the “race box”, including. our politicians who have checked the wrong race box to game the system ( Did Elizabeth Warren get any consequences for her egregious error in choosing the “native american” box and get into the ivy league law school by depriving another eligible candidate? Of course, not and Harvard continues to argue for that very same race box!)

Case-in-point:

“Justice Samuel Alito pressed North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park on this latter point, asking Park when an applicant could rightly be considered a minority according to the University of North Carolina. If an applicant is half-black and half-white, can he claim to be black? Or what about an applicant whose great-grandmother was Native American? Can she claim to be Native American?

Park responded by saying the school depends on self-reporting and generally trusts that what the applicant reports is the truth.

Alito pressed forward: “Well, I identify as an American Indian because I’ve always been told that some ancestor back in the old days was an American Indian,” he said.

Park responded: “In that circumstance, it would be very unlikely that that person was telling the truth.”

But neither UNC nor Harvard admissions ever explained to the court how the schools would determine or dispute these claims.
This is fundamentally because there is no definitive definition of race, nor is there an agreed upon standard-at least, not when it comes to race conscious college admissions. This is my argument for eliminating race box.
Your concerns may be reason to verify race of applicants, it's not reason to eliminate reporting race. There are also significant limitations to financial reporting, with much more nuance than you're acknowledging, but you're not advocating for the elimination of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Your concerns may be reason to verify race of applicants, it's not reason to eliminate reporting race. There are also significant limitations to financial reporting, with much more nuance than you're acknowledging, but you're not advocating for the elimination of it.
Most of us are in agreement with consideration of SE status for admissions. Regardless of race, students from low SES face many common obstacles: they attend inferior schools, and have less time for homework because of jobs or chores, less likely to benefit from actively involved parents and receive less guidance and assistance in almost all walks of life.
It is the need for Race box and the ALDC (legacy/alumni/ athletes etc) list that is being debated on.

I’mInDer, thank you for the intellectual back-forth. Appreciate your time and thoughts, as we agree to disagree!

Hearing the SC arguments, it appears that the Harvard/ UNC legal team doesn't have good answers or justification for race-conscious admissions or for the ALDC category.

Hoping that the SC rules to get rid of both of the above check boxes. May the odds be ever in favor of the “just” side-That will be a win for all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, with Columbia instituting a new Hippocratic oath...
 
Last edited:
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
I'm sorry, what? Who said anything about immigration? You need to check yourself dude, this is pretty flat out racist to assume that URMs are all foreigners who don't belong.
Well you wrote "10% of the class were first gen." You are the one who brought this up.
 
Last edited:
  • Hmm
Reactions: 1 user
Health disparities result from multiple factors, beyond what can be addressed by medical schools such as :
• Poverty and economic inequalities
• Environmental threats
• Inadequate healthcare access
• Individual and behavioral factors
• Educational inequalities
LCME can call all the above factors as “ settled medical issues” and keep doing what it is doing- results will speak for itself- in another decade!

LCME would not be moving the needle on any of the above measures as these are not within the control of med schools. The fix needs to start at the level of elementary schools, local communities and neighborhoods, local political bodies and with our elected officials- definitely not with the med school adcoms!
What you are discussing are extension of epidemiology. African-Americans are especially at risk for hypertension, not solely due to genetics or diet. It's due to having to worry about "____ while black". Just ask the families of George Floyd or Tyre Williams.

We're not trying to train doctors to be social workers. We're training them about structural determinants of health. People get sick just due to diet, genetics, infection or violence. People of color get sick due to the elements you bullet pointed.

As I said, these are elements of epidemiology; doctors need to know about it, and doctors of color will be especially helpful in treating said patients. And it doesn't matter if said doctors came from wealthy or poor families, either. They've walked the walk.

I still can't believe I have to trot this out, yet again:
1676756653955.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Dislike
Reactions: 8 users
What you are discussing are extension of epidemiology. African-Americans are especially at risk for hypertension, not solely due to genetics or diet. It's due to having to worry about "____ while black". Just ask the families of George Floyd or Tyre Williams.

We're not trying to train doctors to be social workers. We're training them about structural determinants of health. People get sick just due to diet, genetics, infection or violence. People of color get sick due to the elements you bullet pointed.

As I said, these are elements of epidemiology; doctors need to know about it, and doctors of color will be especially helpful in treating said patients. And it doesn't matter if said doctors came from wealthy or poor families, either. They've walked the walk.

I still can't believe I have to trot this out, yet again:
View attachment 366414
But this analogy is wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I respect you Goro. But this analogy is so wrong. There is not room for two on the bench. There are limited numbers. Thus the correct analogy, would be pushing the person off the bench.
Let's play "what if". What if we totally close down admission to black applicants and give those seats to the far more talented and deserving Asian applicants who are being pushed out. (BTW, right now, 44% of applicants who identify as Asian are admitted to medical school).

According to AAMC, we'd take 1,855 seats from black matriculants (that's 37.7% of black applicants) and there would still be 5,337 Asian applicants (42.0% of all Asian applicants) who would not be admitted.
 
Ugh.

Some states had to stop doing "Lady's Night" because it was sexist and giving special treatment to females. The ultimate result was women had less access to traditionally male-dominated activities like racing, hunting stands, shooting ranges, etc.--places that offered female discounts. Traditionally men would already be deeply engrained in these activities, already have equipment etc, or would have already budgeted for it.... Whereas a lot of women who may be interested haven't had a lifetime of involvement and are basically starting new.

See the disparity?

Yes, of course there are plenty of men who may also have never been involved in those activities who may have an equal interest, but they are in large going to have more opportunities to connect with other hunters / racers etc and receive support / guidance / discounts that way.

And the point of one program doesn't have to encompass the entirety of every person who may or may not be interested in your activity. One program may have just one focus. Perhaps the one with the largest yield for the least investment. Makes sense?


If there aren't firm quotas for medical schools then there should be. The science shows that there is a need for underrepresented physicians. The ultimate goal should be community and global health, and that goal is more important than any potential discrimination issues. If the law doesn't support this, then the law should change.

Opinions shouldn't really be considered when we are talking about science. That is the point of science, to cut-through common sense and opinion with facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A fine example of a non-denial denial.
Med Ed, Just clarifying that you really wanted to state the above and accuse me of being someone that I am not. As per Oxford dictionary: non-denial denial is defined as: A statement which appears to deny that something is true, but which, when examined carefully, can be seen to have used diversion, bluster, or ambiguity to avoid making a clear, direct denial.

Really sad that a verified physician member of SDN has to resort to this kind of communication against a fellow physician member.

I am not “Srirachamayonnaise” if that is what your above post is insinuating. I am probably 15 years older and wiser than her/him/them and am a fully practicing and licensed physician. You can ask the It team/moderators to do a IP search and confirm that these accounts are not even from the same geographic location- however I hope I will get a courtesy apology from you and the other folks who “rolled their eyes”.

I am a physician who has trained in “elite” schools in the country, and currently working and serving a very underserved and medical community consisting of BiPOC. I am doing this 💯 out of choice as I could have choose. to stay in academia or in research in a “highly ranked”brand name institution. My background definitely lets me talk the talk and walk the walk!

Also as we talk about how URM patients are only best treated and served by URM physicians. I have to state that I am ORM and look much different from the people I serve. However, I am beyond touched that so many of my URM patients pass up on the opportunity to see my many URM physician colleagues and wait for months for an appointment time and choose to be under my care.

I guess that means that most of our patients don’t see color, they see competent and compassionate care. Race is a fixation of the AAMC, LCME, Adcoms, Colleges and Universities, and not the regular people who are here for the service that we promised to deliver.
 
  • Love
  • Dislike
Reactions: 2 users
Well you wrote "10% of the class were first gen "are the one who brought this up. Nice try with your Straw Man argument. You do know that you will have to treat white heterosexual males, even if you don't like them.
First generation in the context of medical school usually means first generation college student.... Even if they were born somewhere else, first gen implies they are immigrants here permanently who presumably either have or are in process of getting citizenship. They are Americans, or almost-Americans.

Obviously we treat all people regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, etc, even the evil white males who are so discriminated against. 🙄
 
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What you are discussing are extension of epidemiology. African-Americans are especially at risk for hypertension, not solely due to genetics or diet. It's due to having to worry about "____ while black". Just ask the families of George Floyd or Tyre Williams.

We're not trying to train doctors to be social workers. We're training them about structural determinants of health. People get sick just due to diet, genetics, infection or violence. People of color get sick due to the elements you bullet pointed.

As I said, these are elements of epidemiology; doctors need to know about it, and doctors of color will be especially helpful in treating said patients. And it doesn't matter if said doctors came from wealthy or poor families, either. They've walked the walk.

I still can't believe I have to trot this out, yet again:
View attachment 366414
Respectfully, we all have to trust each other when we speak from our hearts and from our rich background and experiences without virtue-signaling. I have a wide experience in my everyday clinical practice that is serving mainly minorities and people of color, and my response is once again:

I am a physician who has trained in “elite” schools in the country, and currently working and serving a very underserved and medical community consisting of BiPOC. I am doing this 💯 out of choice as I could have choose. to stay in academia or in research in a “highly ranked”brand name institution. My background definitely lets me talk the talk and walk the walk!

Also as we talk about how URM patients are only best treated and served by URM physicians. I have to state that I am ORM and look much different from the people I serve. However, I am beyond touched that so many of my URM patients pass up on the opportunity to see my many URM physician colleagues and wait for months for an appointment time and choose to be under my care.

I guess that means that most of our patients don’t see color, they see competent and compassionate care. Race is a fixation of the AAMC, LCME, Adcoms, Colleges and Universities, and not the regular people who are here for the service that we promised to deliver.
 
  • Okay...
Reactions: 1 user
Don't know the exact effect size, but I'm sure you could find it in some studies. But even a small effect size is better than no effect size imo. Furthermore, there is also a difference in overall outcomes wrt screening, treatment, etc. (Research: Having a Black Doctor Led Black Men to Receive More-Effective Care). Regarding affirmative action, I'm not actually sold on it's efficacy when it comes to increasing numbers of URM students. Numerous studies have strongly suggested that white women actually benefit significantly more from AA than racial/ethnic minority groups (here's one about business, on the older side but still relevant imo: State Study Tracks Diversity / Affirmative action cited for rise in female, minority bosses). What are these other options that you speak of? I'm interested in hearing them. Despite improvements in recent years, certain racial/ethnic groups are still highly underrepresented in medical schools, so there is clear room for improvement across the board.

As an aside, the more insidious undertone of many AA conversations is so many people defaulting to the assumption that AA is the reason for the bulk of URM students being in medical school, and often the accompanying narrative that they're taking the seat of a more deserving student. It's less often assumed that the URM students who are admitted are just competitive applicants who also earned their spots.

Many people turn to the MCAT in attempts to prove their point, which I find to be poor logic. First, schools accept students within a range deemed acceptable to them, regardless of race. When I was prepping for the MCAT, one of the adcoms at my current school told me verbatim to consider not applying if I didn't score *at least* a 510. I am Black. People also cite MCAT averages for accepted students in different racial groups, as if HBCU medical schools don't exist. HBCU medical schools aren't as focused on the MCAT and usually average around 500, and there are hundreds of Black students at HBCU medical schools. You can do the math about how that impact the average. Schools also care A LOT about fit, and will often turn down high-scoring students from all backgrounds if they feel they are a poor fit. Based on common narratives on here, you would've expected I (as somebody in the 515-520 range) would've gotten into every school I applied to. I did not. My conclusion is that I was simply not a good fit for those schools, and I cut my losses. It wasn't that I had a red flag, because I got into several of their peer institutions.

Imporantly, the MCAT stops being predictive of success in medical coursework and board exams around the early 500s (MCAT scores and medical school success: Do they correlate?), and has never been associated with success as a clinician. In clinical practice, what is the difference between a 510 and a 520? Nothing. Those scores don't tell you anything about what the student will do as a physician. But more 520s will get you a higher USNWR ranking (hopefully that becomes slightly less of a thing now that schools are dropping from the list, but we'll see lol). With the MCAT only being one aspect that schools look for, it makes no sense to associate competitiveness solely with how high the MCAT score is.
I’ve been passively watching this thread … but dang you are truly informed .

Nothing but straight facts here
 
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 2 users
I am not “Srirachamayonnaise” if that is what your above post is insinuating. I am probably 15 years older and wiser than her/him/them and am a fully practicing and licensed physician. You can ask the It team/moderators to do a IP search and confirm that these accounts are not even from the same geographic location-
How do you know you two are in different geographic locations?

I can move my IP all over the world with a VPN.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Dislike
Reactions: 7 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top