The ethical question of legacy acceptances

[WedgeDawg]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Someone please explain to me the purpose of this thread

 

[Nikj]

Even people that have undergone those issues still prove themselves capable to enter medical school. They still have a good GPA/MCAT or have done extra steps to ensure their acceptance (SMP, etc.).



Top 20 schools publish their average GPA/MCATs.



That doesn't make it "fair".

I'm sorry, how do you know it hasn't affected someone to the point that it has hindered their ability to do well? That is extremely presumptuous. In fact there have been hundreds of posts on these forums about personal life issues hindering performance.

It's not suppose to be fair, that is my point. Since you can't give me an objective way to account for all the factors that affect a persons outcome in life, then it will always be an unfair process.

 

[gyngyn]

Someone please explain to me the purpose of this thread

It reminds me a bit of that thread dedicated to the shock and disbelief that Loma Linda discriminates in favor of Adventists.

 

[puahate]

This is a bigger deal than URM debates and is probably more widespread imo

 

[Nikj]

Not really.

How did you come to that conclusion? If the parents/family have contributed to the University/College through donations/academically/reputation/etc then yes, their children deserve it, again, all things equal, or slightly unequal.

 

[Robin-jay]

I'm sorry, how do you know it hasn't affected someone to the point that it has hindered their ability to do well? That is extremely presumptuous. In fact there have been hundreds of posts on these forums about personal life issues hindering performance.

Because those same people prove they can handle medical at some point by doing a SMP or so. They don't get accepted on the belief that the reason they didn't do well is due to illness, etc.

It's not suppose to be fair, that is my point.

I disagree, I think the admissions process should be fair lol.

Since you can't give me an objective way to account for all the factors that affect a persons outcome in life, then it will always be an unfair process.

An object way (as much as possible) would be to look at GPA/MCAT/EC's, not who your parents work for.

The process will never be fair, but it can be much more fair.

 

[altblue]

How did you come to that conclusion? If the parents/family have contributed to the University/College through donations/academically/reputation/etc then yes, their children deserve it, again, all things equal, or slightly unequal.

From the perspective of financially-minded admissions officers, this is true. But you keep using words like deserve or rights, even though the benefit that legacies get is a only a byproduct of pragmatics that not everyone necessarily agrees with. Essentially, legacy students get easier access because of the school's financial, and perhaps political, bottom line. The students get in, and the donations continue or faculty members are kept happy.

To me that doesn't scream that those students are "deserving", and the students' improved standing by virtue of their connections doesn't mean they're more intrinsically entitled to receive this education.

 

[Nikj]

From the perspective of financially-minded admissions officers, this is true. But you keep using words like deserve or rights, even though the benefit that legacies get is a only a byproduct of pragmatics that not everyone necessarily agrees with. Essentially, legacy students get easier access because the school's financial, and perhaps political, bottom line. That doesn't scream those students are "deserving", and those students' improved standing by virtue of their connections doesn't mean they're more intrinsically entitled to those benefits.

I agree that they are not necessarily more intrinsically entitled, but if their parents have donated $12 Million so the University can continue its cancer research, or open a new simlab, and that child has an MCAT that is say 510, GPA is 3.7, and another kid comes along with a 514, and 4.0, I'd strongly argue that the former should get accepted simply due to what his family has done to advance the University.

 

[Robin-jay]

I agree that they are not necessarily more intrinsically entitled, but if their parents have donated $12 Million so the University can continue its cancer research, or open a new simlab, and that child has an MCAT that is say 510, GPA is 3.7, and another kid comes along with a 514, and 4.0, I'd strongly argue that the former should get accepted simply due to what his family has done to advance the University.

In that scenario, the student with a 490 and 3.3 GPA would probably be accepted.

 

[Nikj]

In that scenario, the student with a 490 and 3.3 GPA would probably be accepted.

Ok ya thats an extreme example, but if its the same stats scenario, and instead the kids Dad graduated from the medical school, I'd still argue in their favor.

Also in your previous post you talk about making the process more fair, but I still don't see how that can ever be the case, and suggesting that legacy shouldn't play a role in admissions ignores that so many other factors that may play a larger, more unfair role.
The issue again is that there are so many factors that are unfair, that if you start hacking away at every single one, then you have to give way to all of them, and that is an nearly impossible task.

 

[altblue]

I agree that they are not necessarily more intrinsically entitled, but if their parents have donated $12 Million so the University can continue its cancer research, or open a new simlab, and that child has an MCAT that is say 510, GPA is 3.7, and another kid comes along with a 514, and 4.0, I'd strongly argue that the former should get accepted simply due to what his family has done to advance the University.

Given that most high-paying specialists are only moderately wealthy, I think that's an extreme case. More often than not it's prob a matter of keeping a full professor of anesthesiology happy by letting his daughter in, or on a grander scale, making sure older alums contribute in some way to alumni groups.

 

[Robin-jay]

Ok ya thats an extreme example, but if its the same stats scenario, and instead the kids Dad graduated from the medical school, I'd still argue in their favor.

I'd rather keep things simple and fair. To each their own.

 

[altblue]

Ok ya thats an extreme example, but if its the same stats scenario, and instead the kids Dad graduated from the medical school, I'd still argue in their favor.

That's still a pretty big gap in stats. One has fairly borderline stats, and the other could get into a place like Emory or Wisconsin with theirs. Is the status of an alum really worth it?

 

[Nikj]

Given that most high-paying specialists are only moderately wealthy, I think that's an extreme case. More often than not it's prob a matter of keeping a full professor of anesthesiology happy by letting his daughter in, or on a grander scale, making sure older alums contribute in some way to alumni groups.

I'd rather keep things simple and fair. To each their own.

My overall point lies in @altblues answer. How many students (like what %) are being accepted that have truly below average stats? It cant be that many, but in the end it allows the School to continue functioning normally, which allows it to keep its status as a premier school. I mean no one is forcing you to apply to these schools, but you apply and want to attend because of the opportunities they afford you. If that means that a few kids who would otherwise be passed up, get accepted, and keep the school functioning, then what is the problem?

 

[altblue]

My overall point lies in @altblues answer. How many students (like what %) are being accepted that have truly below average stats? It cant be that many, but in the end it allows the School to continue functioning normally, which allows it to keep its status as a premier school. I mean no one is forcing you to apply to these schools, but you apply and want to attend because of the opportunities they afford you. If that means that a few kids who would otherwise be passed up, get accepted, and keep the school functioning, then what is the problem?

Never said it was necessary tho, was just trying to explain the school's reasoning

 

[Nikj]

That's still a pretty big gap in stats. One has fairly borderline stats, and the other could get into a place like Emory or Wisconsin with theirs. Is the status of an alum really worth it?

Yes, but at a certain point using the MCAT/GPA as means to predict success in medical school/boards/residency/practice does not make sense. Thats why other factors like ECs, prior military, family connections, other life achievements come into play.

 

[altblue]

Yes, but at a certain point using the MCAT/GPA as means to predict success in medical school/boards/residency/practice does not make sense. Thats why other factors like ECs, prior military, family connections, other life achievements come into play.

Fair enough there

 

[Goro]

It reminds me a bit of that thread dedicated to the shock and disbelief that Loma Linda discriminates in favor of Adventists.

This was a thing?????

 

[Nikj]

Never said it was necessary tho, was just trying to explain the school's reasoning

I didn't claim that you said it was necessary, I just was saying that what you mentioned in your answer is what I was trying to get at, apologies if it came off differently.

 

[Robin-jay]

Yes, but at a certain point using the MCAT/GPA as means to predict success in medical school/boards/residency/practice does not make sense. Thats why other factors like ECs, prior military, family connections, other life achievements come into play.

ROFL, I like how you coupled ECs and being in the military with "family connections". EC's are earned. Family connections are not.

 

[altblue]

I didn't claim that you said it was necessary, I just was saying that what you mentioned in your answer is what I was trying to get at, apologies if it came off differently.

No worries

 

[Nikj]

ROFL, I like how you coupled ECs and being in the military with "family connections". EC's are earned. Family connections are not.

What?
They are all factors that play a role, and should play a role. I'm not equating them. The admissions process should be wholly evaluating candidates, and that includes all those things.

I could have also put birth place on that list, because someone who was born somewhere, and goes to school in the same location is likely to end up also living/practicing in the region. Thats why schools often give a regional preference, just like they give preference to students whose families are loyal to the school.

 

[Robin-jay]

What?
They are all factors that play a role, and should play a role. I'm not equating them. The admissions process should be wholly evaluating candidates, and that includes all those things.

Reread your sentence, you equated.

I could have also put birth place on that list, because someone who was born somewhere, and goes to school in the same location is likely to end up also living/practicing in the region. Thats why schools often give a regional preference, just like they give preference to students whose families are loyal to the school.

I dunno why you are fighting so much here. Sometimes people make simple things way more confusing than they have to be.

It's simply not fair to give preference to people because of family connections.

 

[Nikj]

Reread your sentence, you equated.



I dunno why you are fighting so much here. Sometimes people make simple things way more confusing than they have to be.

It's simply not fair to give preference to people because of family connections.

my sentence was " Thats why other factors like ECs, prior military, family connections, other life achievements come into play." Where in there do I equate them? Where did I say they are equal factors? I put them in a list, how does that make them equal?

I'm not saying its fair, I understand its not fair. I was pointing out the fact that objective measures like MCAT/GPA end up not being enough to differentiate who should enter in the school, so something like family connections do and SHOULD play a role in selection. How big of a role is up to the school itself.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I disagree with you.
when i use the word prejudice it is meant as biased towards or partial.

That is not the definition of prejudice. It doesn't matter how you use it when there is literally a dictionary (and commonly accepted I might add) definition that is completely different.

Because they aren't the best people for the position.

And you know this how?

I disagree, I think the admissions process should be fair lol.

Lol it is fair for the most part. You forget that the point of medical schools is to produce doctors, not medical students. There is literally no correlation between MCAT and clinical performance. Deciding which one will turn out to be a better doctor between a 528 and a 505 is a coin flip. Schools like high MCATs because it makes them look better, not because having a 518 median means their grads will be better doctors than the school that has a 511 median.

 

[Robin-jay]

And you know this how?

Ask any ADCOM why they choose higher MCAT and GPA applicants over others.

Higher chances of success.

Lol it is fair for the most part.

For the "most" part. Why not just make it fair, period?

You forget that the point of medical schools is to produce doctors, not medical students.

No, I always keep that in mind, which is why I think EC's need to be taken more serious in medical school admissions, not less. EC's that one accomplishes, like publications. Not being born to a connected family.

There is literally no correlation between MCAT and clinical performance.

I'm not the biggest fan of the MCAT.

Deciding which one will turn out to be a better doctor between a 528 and a 505 is a coin flip.

Then tell that to medical schools who won't even look at an applicant with less than 510 at top 20 schools.

 

[Goro]

Ask any ADCOM why they choose higher MCAT and GPA applicants over others.


Then tell that to medical schools who won't even look at an applicant with less than 510 at top 20 schools.

Harvard's 10th %ile is 512...hence, they indeed look below 510.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Then tell that to medical schools who won't even look at an applicant with less than 510 at top 20 schools.

They do that because they can choose whoever they want, and its an easy way to cull the heard. Throw in the fact that it increases their USNews ranking to have higher averages which makes them look better. It's not because they make better doctors.

Ask any ADCOM why they choose higher MCAT and GPA applicants over others.

Higher chances of success.

There have been numerous studies that show that isn't true. Schools can be as selective as they want when it's a sellers market and they do so for a number of factors. You could transplant Drexel's incoming class to Harvard and the outcome would be the same as what one would expect out of Harvard.

No, I always keep that in mind, which is why I think EC's need to be taken more serious in medical school admissions, not less. EC's that one accomplishes, like publications. Not being born to a connected family.

You and I both know that publications are a terrible way to compare applicants. Publications also don't mean anything as to your ability as a future doctor. Making the admissions process focused heavily on numbers and things like publications would make the process far more unfair than it currently is.

 

[Robin-jay]

They do that because they can choose whoever they want, and its an easy way to cull the heard. Throw in the fact that it increases their USNews ranking to have higher averages which makes them look better. It's not because they make better doctors.

Why take a risk on a lower stat applicant? Many top 20 schools don't.

There have been numerous studies that show that isn't true. Schools can be as selective as they want when it's a sellers market and they do so for a number of factors. You could transplant Drexel's incoming class to Harvard and the outcome would be the same as what one would expect out of Harvard.

It depends on where you draw the line. 500, 505, 510, etc.

You and I both know that publications are a terrible way to compare applicants. Publications also don't mean anything as to your ability as a future doctor. Making the admissions process focused heavily on numbers and things like publications would make the process far more unfair than it currently is.

Better indicator than family connections.

 

[Robin-jay]

Harvard's 10th %ile is 512...hence, they indeed look below 510.

Specific number changes, point still remains the same.

 

[Goro]

It reminds me a bit of that thread dedicated to the shock and disbelief that Loma Linda discriminates in favor of Adventists.

You weren't kidding!!!
Does Loma Linda look at Muslims unfavorably?

 

[Goro]

Why take a risk on a lower stat applicant? Many top 20 schools don't.

It depends on where you draw the line. 500, 505, 510, etc.

Better indicator than family connections.

The 10th%iles even at the Really Top Schools say otherwise.

We Faculty members know that if you have a 3.3 GPA and an MCAT > 504, you can handle med school. The higher the stats, the higher the "firepower", meaning the quicker people are to grasp things. But work ethic plays a big role in this, along with resilience and judgment.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

It depends on where you draw the line. 500, 505, 510, etc.

No it doesn't. Once you hit a certain point, it used to be the old 27 I believe, there is no difference in success rates. Same with GPAs.

Why take a risk on a lower stat applicant? Many top 20 schools don't

It has nothing to do with risk and that's what you seem to be missing even though multiple people have said it. They do it simply because they can.

Better indicator than family connections.

Not really. Most undergrad publications are extremely weak, with the student not doing much if anything that was actually truly significant to the project. The amount of people with genuine "I came up with this idea, designed the project, and wrote most of the manuscript" is an extremely small pool of applicants.

 

[Nikj]

Better indicator than family connections.

You're joking right? You talk about things being unfair, research is right up there. Research, and the ability for a student to get it done depends hugely on connections, where they go to school, the funding the school gets, the kind of Professors teaching at the school, the number of other students vying for those same positions. Its ridiculous to think research isn't unfair.

 

[Robin-jay]

No it doesn't. Once you hit a certain point, it used to be the old 27 I believe, there is no difference in success rates. Same with GPAs.

Maybe the family connections have less than a 27 MCAT, maybe closer to 24 or 25.

It has nothing to do with risk and that's what you seem to be missing even though multiple people have said it. They do it simply because they can.

Right, they do, and that's not fair and won't have the best applicant pool.

Not really. Most undergrad publications are extremely weak, with the student not doing much if anything that was actually truly significant to the project. The amount of people with genuine "I came up with this idea, designed the project, and wrote most of the manuscript" is an extremely small pool of applicants.

EC's can be anything you want. Doesn't have to be undergrad. publications.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

EC's can be anything you want. Doesn't have to be undergrad. publications.

Stop changing the goalposts. You are the one who brought up publications. The ECs that are widely accepted as good for medical school are not a secret, we aren't creating new ECs to judge applicants by here. You said that "ECs that one accomplishes" should be a mark we judge applicants by. That's the point of ECs, they aren't "accomplishments," they are life experiences that are supposed to show who you are as a person.

Maybe the family connections have less than a 27 MCAT, maybe closer to 24 or 25.

The number of true legacy admits that fit the "terribly low numbers that would never land them anywhere without mommy or daddy" is such a small number of people that it's an insignificant category. No one is losing their medical school seat to these people.

End story:. Making the admissions game all about numbers would make the process far more unfair than it currently is, and high numbers don't mean better doctors.

 

[Nikj]

Maybe the family connections have less than a 27 MCAT, maybe closer to 24 or 25.



Right, they do, and that's not fair and won't have the best applicant pool.



EC's can be anything you want. Doesn't have to be undergrad. publications.

So what other unbiased and FAIR EC's are you talking about that can objectively be used to gauge an applicants suitability for a top tier medical school? Because you are hanging your entire argument on these "Fair" measures, but you have yet to offer one that is unbiased and "fair".

 

[Robin-jay]

Stop changing the goalposts. You are the one who brought up publications. The ECs that are widely accepted as good for medical school are not a secret, we aren't creating new ECs to judge applicants by here. You said that "ECs that one accomplishes" should be a mark we judge applicants by. That's the point of ECs, they aren't "accomplishments," they are life experiences that are supposed to show who you are as a person.

Ok let's go back to publications I guess. For those of us who were graduate students, our publications are much more depth and respectable than bench work research. I did a thesis defense over mine. So that's a decent publication EC.

The number of true legacy admits that fit the "terribly low numbers that would never land them anywhere without mommy or daddy" is such a small number of people that it's an insignificant category. No one is losing their medical school seat to these people.

I disagree, I think a few people do lose their seats to these people. It's not hard math.

End story:. Making the admissions game all about numbers would make the process far more unfair than it currently is, and high numbers don't mean better doctors.

I never said I wanted Admissions to be only about numbers lol. I want it to be about EC's just as much as numbers, and resent family connections being considered as a good way to choose applicants.

Agree to disgree.

 

[Robin-jay]

So what other unbiased and FAIR EC's are you talking about that can objectively be used to gauge an applicants suitability for a top tier medical school? Because you are hanging your entire argument on these "Fair" measures, but you have yet to offer one that is unbiased and "fair".

EC's that are accomplishments, not family connections. volunteering, teaching, publications, etc.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[getdown]

Hey how about this? When you get enough money to start a medical school you can set up your own criteria for the students you select to attend. At this point, all this rambling on this thread literally has accomplished nothing. You can argue about the merits of legacy vs ECs vs whatever else but it doesn't change that that's the current standard and medical schools will continue to follow them.

Peace out. I'm outtie

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

For those of us who were graduate students, our publications are much more depth and respectable than bench work research. I did a thesis defense over mine. So that's a decent publication EC.

And that's good, but its in the small minority of people with research. And you will appropriately get a boost in admissions for that potentially. Still doesn't make it a "fair" way to compare applicants across the board.

I disagree, I think a few people do lose their seats to these people. It's not hard math.

It could be true but medical school admissions is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone else gets a seat doesn't meant that you don't.

and resent family connections being considered as a good way to choose applicants.

No one ever said it was a "good way to choose applicants." It was stated that it can be something to include in the overall picture, as it currently is. The people who complain about this are generally the ones who bitch and moan about URMs having lower admissions standards. Again, the number of people with exceptionally low stats that get admitted because of a legacy is rather low. It is not large enough to effect the applicant pool as a whole and people's chances at a medical school seat.

 

[Nikj]

EC's that are accomplishments, not family connections. volunteering, teaching, publications, etc.

This isn't rocket science.

All of those things you listed can be affected, and do get affected by family connections, personal connections, in the right spot at the right time, other unfair factor, etc....

Many many many people get EC's done because of those unfair advantages. Yes, some more or less than others, but there is unfairness in every aspect of applying to medical school, including MCAT/GPA. You can't talk about things being unfair and pick and choose one thing because it is convenient.

 

[Robin-jay]

And that's good, but its in the small minority of people with research. And you will appropriately get a boost in admissions for that potentially. Still doesn't make it a "fair" way to compare applicants across the board.

Nothing is perfectly fair in the application process. grades and MCAT scores aren't even fair when considering all the factors. However, its to the degree of "fairness" that matters. Yes, many applicants didn't have graduate level publications, but it was also their choice to not pursue that avenue. Having family connections isn't a choice. It's a given.

It could be true but medical school admissions is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone else gets a seat doesn't meant that you don't.

Yes, but that seat still is taken. If that person didn't have that seat, someone else would have. Someone has got to come off the wait list for that spot.

No one ever said it was a "good way to choose applicants." It was stated that it can be something to include in the overall picture, as it currently is. The people who complain about this are generally the ones who bitch and moan about URMs having lower admissions standards. Again, the number of people with exceptionally low stats that get admitted because of a legacy is rather low. It is not large enough to effect the applicant pool as a whole and people's chances at a medical school seat.

It may effect the applicant pool to a very small extent, but it still does. For the most part, its probably pretty minor in influencing someones chance at medical school, but it occasionally does.

 

[dostudent545]

Just curious, for everyone in this thread extremely against nepotism in medicine and feel that it needs to be changed immediately, how do you guys feel about affirmative action?