Talking About Campus Activism

[Bulldogs2020]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm going to be applying soon and have a question about how I should talk about some of my ECs in my applications and during interviews.

I've been involved with campus activism to help our campus workers join a union and paid a living wage. My university is wealthy and we thought it was ridiculous to spend money on some of the frivolous things we have while workers struggle to put food on the table. We were, by and large, very successful after years of hard work. Some workers were even provided with university health plans for the first time ever. It is one of the things that I am most proud of and I have no regrets of my involvement.

Naturally, this line of work involves taking a somewhat antagonistic position against university administration. Here I should point out that I am not someone who hates my school and have worked with administrators on the inside as well. But my fear is that I will be typecast as a nuisance and less likely to be admitted. Is that a real issue, and how should I approach this?

 

[LizzyM]

You are under no obligation to report every activity in which you participated while in college. If you omit this activity, it can't be used against you but it also deprives you of any benefit you might receive from reviewers who would see this as evidence of altruism, service to the needy, leadership, advocacy or whatever else.

Didn't the ACA have more of a role in getting workers enrolled in university health plans than your campus activism did? Don't take credit that isn't yours.

You need to decide if the benefit of listing this an an experience outweighs the potential harm to your application if you report.

 

[625233]

If your stats are good, and ECs solid I'd omit. If your below average as an applicant then I'd list. Just my $0.02 🙂


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bulldogs2020]

You are under no obligation to report every activity in which you participated while in college. If you omit this activity, it can't be used against you but it also deprives you of any benefit you might receive from reviewers who would see this as evidence of altruism, service to the needy, leadership, advocacy or whatever else.

Didn't the ACA have more of a role in getting workers enrolled in university health plans than your campus activism did? Don't take credit that isn't yours.

You need to decide if the benefit of listing this an an experience outweighs the potential harm to your application if you report.

My question is to you: what would you think of this EC? It is a very significant leadership and service experience for me, but I do have other activities as well. In weighing if I want to include it, I would like your perspective on it. At the least I would hope to be able to focus on other aspects of it like helping teach workers English, etc.

And no, the health plans were included in a union contract. ACA did not apply because most were classified as part-time.

 

[LizzyM]

My perspective doesn't matter very much because I am just one person at one school. The perspectives of the many individuals that make up a committee and the make-up of each committee makes it difficult to know how this will be received. You might be assigned to someone who will think highly of someone involved in such work and you may be assigned to someone who thinks you are best avoided as a future student because of this work.

You really have to decide how important this is to you and if you are willing to take a chance that a biased reviewer will tank your chances at one or more schools.

 

[deleted480308]

How much were you all proposing a janitor should be paid per hour? And how many hours to get health insurance?

 

[LizzyM]

How much were you all proposing a janitor should be paid per hour? And how many hours to get health insurance?

You assume that it is janitors but it is as likely to be graduate students who the NLRB says may be treated as employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

 

[Bulldogs2020]

My perspective doesn't matter very much because I am just one person at one school. The perspectives of the many individuals that make up a committee and the make-up of each committee makes it difficult to know how this will be received. You might be assigned to someone who will think highly of someone involved in such work and you may be assigned to someone who thinks you are best avoided as a future student because of this work.

You really have to decide how important this is to you and if you are willing to take a chance that a biased reviewer will tank your chances at one or more schools.

Could you give me any insight into what a typical adcom member is like, politically or otherwise open-minded? Or general feelings about how close adcoms consider themselves in relation to admin on issues like unionization. It's hard to take a chance like that when I don't have a sense of who my audience is.

 

[LizzyM]

Could you give me any insight into what a typical adcom member is like, politically or otherwise open-minded? It's hard to take a chance like that when I don't have a sense of who my audience is.

They are medical school faculty. Some are faculty who primarily practice medicine but have admitting privileges at a teaching hospital and therefore serve on the admission committee as part of "academic good citizenship". Ditto the retirees who are "professors emeritus" and who are expected to serve on committees. Being a member of the medical school faculty is not the same as for other parts of the university where you are full-time with a teaching load and/or research grants; many medical school faculty support themselves by working as clinicians.

They range in age from early 40s to early 80s (no, I'm not kidding). They are of all races, religions, ethnic groups, marital status and sexual orientation. There are American-born US citizens, permanent residents, naturalized citizens. They may be physicians or non-physician scientists or faculty engaged in medical humanties. Among the medical specialties, they can be in any of the specialties and as you may have heard, the specialties run the gamut from socially/politically liberal to socially/politically conservative. It think that the same can be said for the non-physicians.

I've never heard anyone be overtly biased toward any protected class of individuals and if they were, I think that they would be hustled off the committee rather quickly. That said, with only 10-20% of applicants being able to be interviewed at some schools, if a reviewer doesn't like you for a reason they'd rather not express, they can find 5 nits to pick as reasons not to recommend your application. Proceed with caution.

 

[Bulldogs2020]

They are medical school faculty. Some are faculty who primarily practice medicine but have admitting privileges at a teaching hospital and therefore serve on the admission committee as part of "academic good citizenship". Ditto the retirees who are "professors emeritus" and who are expected to serve on committees. Being a member of the medical school faculty is not the same as for other parts of the university where you are full-time with a teaching load and/or research grants; many medical school faculty support themselves by working as clinicians.

They range in age from early 40s to early 80s (no, I'm not kidding). They are of all races, religions, ethnic groups, marital status and sexual orientation. There are American-born US citizens, permanent residents, naturalized citizens. They may be physicians or non-physician scientists or faculty engaged in medical humanties. Among the medical specialties, they can be in any of the specialties and as you may have heard, the specialties run the gamut from socially/politically liberal to socially/politically conservative. It think that the same can be said for the non-physicians.

I've never heard anyone be overtly biased toward any protected class of individuals and if they were, I think that they would be hustled off the committee rather quickly. That said, with only 10-20% of applicants being able to be interviewed at some schools, if a reviewer doesn't like you for a reason they'd rather not express, they can find 5 nits to pick as reasons not to recommend your application. Proceed with caution.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll focus on the non-controversial aspects.

 

[Goro]

To follow up on my learned colleague's wise words, what I look for is someone who is into advocacy, not activism. And yes, there's a difference.

They are medical school faculty. Some are faculty who primarily practice medicine but have admitting privileges at a teaching hospital and therefore serve on the admission committee as part of "academic good citizenship". Ditto the retirees who are "professors emeritus" and who are expected to serve on committees. Being a member of the medical school faculty is not the same as for other parts of the university where you are full-time with a teaching load and/or research grants; many medical school faculty support themselves by working as clinicians.

They range in age from early 40s to early 80s (no, I'm not kidding). They are of all races, religions, ethnic groups, marital status and sexual orientation. There are American-born US citizens, permanent residents, naturalized citizens. They may be physicians or non-physician scientists or faculty engaged in medical humanties. Among the medical specialties, they can be in any of the specialties and as you may have heard, the specialties run the gamut from socially/politically liberal to socially/politically conservative. It think that the same can be said for the non-physicians.

I've never heard anyone be overtly biased toward any protected class of individuals and if they were, I think that they would be hustled off the committee rather quickly. That said, with only 10-20% of applicants being able to be interviewed at some schools, if a reviewer doesn't like you for a reason they'd rather not express, they can find 5 nits to pick as reasons not to recommend your application. Proceed with caution.

 

[deleted480308]

You assume that it is janitors but it is as likely to be graduate students who the NLRB says may be treated as employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

Good point.

Op, janitor question still stands. What were your demands for grad students beyond free tuition

 

[Bulldogs2020]

To follow up on my learned colleague's wise words, what I look for is someone who is into advocacy, not activism. And yes, there's a difference.

How would you define the difference and why do you view activism negatively?

Good point.

Op, janitor question still stands. What were your demands for grad students beyond free tuition

I don't want to discuss it in detail for anonymity reasons, sorry. The work was all in the nature of making sure that anyone who works on campus is paid a living wage. Nothing we were asking for was exorbitant and there was broad community support for it.

 

[deleted480308]

How would you define the difference and why do you view activism negatively?


I don't want to discuss it in detail for anonymity reasons, sorry. The work was all in the nature of making sure that anyone who works on campus is paid a living wage. Nothing we were asking for was exorbitant and there was broad community support for it.

I'll point out that a "living wage" is actually exorbitant for some tasks but by all means enjoy fighting the man

 

[Goro]

Activist seemed to be far more into their activism then any other goal, including medicine. At least the ones I've met. Their Zeal is palpable.

We want people to be good doctors, not activists.

If Someone wants to be an activist they can go to law school or be political science majors.

How would you define the difference and why do you view activism negatively?


I don't want to discuss it in detail for anonymity reasons, sorry. The work was all in the nature of making sure that anyone who works on campus is paid a living wage. Nothing we were asking for was exorbitant and there was broad community support for it.