URM acceptance rates - confused

[skypilot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

According to MSAR the lowest accepted MCAT scores at the top schools were (not to say that these were necessarily URM scores):
VR/PS/BS
WashU 6/9/9
Harvard 7/7/8
Hopkins 6/8/8
Stanford 4/8/8
UCSF 6/7/8
Yale 6/8/9
Penn 7/8/9
Duke 6/7/8
Mayo 6/8/8

A person may have gotten a 7 on the physical sciences section and then scored a 11 on verbal and a 11 on bio for a 29.

Do the scores above represent combined scores or individual scores from each section of the test? The only surprising one is the 4 on physical sciences at Stanford!

 

[star22]

A person may have gotten a 7 on the physical sciences section and then scored a 11 on verbal and a 11 on bio for a 29.

Do the scores above represent combined scores or individual scores from each section of the test? The only surprising one is the 4 on physical sciences at Stanford!

Individual scores from each section

 

[star22]

A person may have gotten a 7 on the physical sciences section and then scored a 11 on verbal and a 11 on bio for a 29.

Do the scores above represent combined scores or individual scores from each section of the test? The only surprising one is the 4 on physical sciences at Stanford!

oh, and the scores are VR/PS/BS

 

[MarzMD]

According to MSAR the lowest accepted MCAT scores at the top schools were (not to say that these were necessarily URM scores):
VR/PS/BS
WashU 6/9/9
Harvard 7/7/8
Hopkins 6/8/8
Stanford 4/8/8
UCSF 6/7/8
Yale 6/8/9
Penn 7/8/9
Duke 6/7/8
Mayo 6/8/8

That is pretty scary. Not saying that someone with those scores cant succeed in med school, but placing them at a top med school is irresponsible.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

I will personally ask for my account to be banned if you can come up with something about AA that was not said in this thread http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260

😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴 😴

I'm waiting...

 

[Thundrstorm]

That is pretty scary. Not saying that someone with those scores cant succeed in med school, but placing them at a top med school is irresponsible.

Why is it only irresponsible at the top schools? In fact, why is it irresponsible at all?

 

[happydays]

According to MSAR the lowest accepted MCAT scores at the top schools were (not to say that these were necessarily URM scores):
VR/PS/BS
WashU 6/9/9
Harvard 7/7/8
Hopkins 6/8/8
Stanford 4/8/8
UCSF 6/7/8
Yale 6/8/9
Penn 7/8/9
Duke 6/7/8
Mayo 6/8/8

I can see the "6," but 4 VR at Stanford!!

 

[eastsidaz]

Why is it only irresponsible at the top schools? In fact, why is it irresponsible at all?

How is it not irresponsible? Scores that low indicate serious intellectual deficiencies, or, at very least, a complete inability to perform under pressure. Since both reasonable intellectual capacity and grace under pressure are required of physicians, it seems irresponsible across the board. It's even more irresponsible at top schools, where competition is keen and extremely talented, qualified individuals are being denied spots in favor of Mr. Stanford 4.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

That is pretty scary. Not saying that someone with those scores cant succeed in med school, but placing them at a top med school is irresponsible.

Not to say that I find those scores acceptable but, we don’t know that persons story… Thus, looking at their MCAT score and using it to judge their intelligence is unfair and misleading. It can easily be assumed that these people were not capable of putting in the hours to study for the MCAT for various reasons(SES) and, I believe adcoms recognized this. Lastly, most pre-meds I know ( of all races) hit similar scores(some even worse) on their MCAT diags thus, this person might have been a 33 with the right prep-course and prep-time. …

BTW I know a non-urm that got into one of these “top schools” w/ 3.5 and 26 … Not exactly the prototype ORM that we hear about on SDN ad infinitum.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Not to say that I find those scores acceptable but, we don’t know that persons story… Thus, looking at their MCAT score and using it to judge their intelligence is unfair and misleading. It can easily be assumed that these people were not capable of putting in the hours to study for the MCAT for various reasons(SES) and, I believe adcoms recognized this. Lastly, most pre-meds I know ( of all races) hit similar scores(some even worse) on their MCAT diags thus, this person might have been a 33 with the right prep-course and prep-time. …

BTW I know a non-urm that got into one of these “top schools” w/ 3.5 and 26 … Not exactly the prototype ORM that we hear about on SDN ad infinitum.

btw

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260

everything that has been said here can also be found on the link above...

 

[freelove]

I feel like whoever started this thread was regrettably born in the wrong era... He/ she would feel most at home in Rome, when the Empire was at its peak, and one could buy season passes to the Coliseum to watch the gladiators go at it...

But for now there's SDN

 

[NotAnMD]

According to MSAR the lowest accepted MCAT scores at the top schools were (not to say that these were necessarily URM scores):
VR/PS/BS
WashU 6/9/9
Harvard 7/7/8
Hopkins 6/8/8
Stanford 4/8/8
UCSF 6/7/8
Yale 6/8/9
Penn 7/8/9
Duke 6/7/8
Mayo 6/8/8

Wowzer...that's amazing...is this last year?

 

[MarzMD]

Why is it only irresponsible at the top schools? In fact, why is it irresponsible at all?

Because to learn something you need to be in an environment that challenges you as much as you can handle, and classmates at around your test taking skills. Someone with a 22 mcat at Harvard will not learn nearly as well as a 22 at a less ranked school due to environment alone. To place someone in such a competetive environment who has not demonstrated scoring within a like 12 point range of the avg. mcat score at that particular school is VERY irresponsible.

 

[NapeSpikes]

Wowzer...that's amazing...is this last year?

Those subscores aren't necessarily from one person though. The person at Stanford was probably a 4-15-15 or something ridiculous.

 

[mellifluous]

Top schools are not stupid/irresponsible/crazy. They have been letting in a few people with lower than average MCAT scores for years. If these individuals flunked out or turned out to be horrible physicians, then the schools would 'learn their lesson' and stop letting these individuals in. Apparently this is not the case, because it still happens today. Top schools know what they're looking for (more so than we do). It's not just in the numbers; they are looking for leaders and ambassadors for their University. They want diversity in all aspects, be it socioeconomic, ethnic, background, interests, geographic, whatever. These people probably had compelling personalities or stories, who knows? I think it's wonderful that all top schools aren't "number ******" like they could be. I mean, Harvard's MCAT average could probably be ~40, but they don't just choose the 'studious science freak.' (you know what I mean). It's a bunch of factors. That's one reason why they're so respected. Personally, I want classmates with different stories, personalities, and backgrounds, who are well-rounded and passionate about medicine. Of course, this is just my opinion. 🙂

Also, some disadvantaged student with a low MCAT score may not have been challenged or pushed as an undergrad. A different environment with a higher quality education could produce different results. Okay, maybe this was a bit off topic....

 

[freelove]

Other factors do come into play. Factors that the person may have explained in a very eloquent PS.

Also in light of the very current SAT test score fiasco, America can no longer afford to place such heavy emphasis on standardized tests.

 

[swifty100850]

Also in light of the very current SAT test score fiasco, America can no longer afford to place such heavy emphasis on standardized tests.

What fiasco? The Collegeboard screwed over a couple thousand people last year. That's completely unrelated to the AAMC. I never heard of this happening with the MCAT.

The MCAT is still the most objective way to evaluate the learning ability of students. Too many factors play into grades (where you went to college, what your majors was, if you needed to work full-time, challenge of course schedule, health).

 

[riceman04]

That "black white" tv show. I watched about 20 minutes of it, and quite frankly was very offended. I was offended that someone had to "learn to speak black". I know plenty of black people who speak grammatically correct English, and I personally see the "black speech" (I am offended even typing that phrase) not being a racial issue, but an educational issue. I found it appalling that the poor grammar was being excused as a racial issue. BTW: I also know plenty of white people who have disgustingly poor grammar. I don't view them as "speaking black". I view them as uneducated, whether they be black, white, pink, purple, or green. I think several issues that have been viewed as AA issues that are, in reality, socio-economic issues.

As for the disadvantaged question: personally, I'd rather not even apply to something than admit I have a disability or a disadvantage: judge me on my merits. Judge me on my character. Judge me on my work. I would really not feel good about myself if I thought I got somewhere just to fill a quota for disabled/disadvantaged. If I couldn't handle the work, I wouldn't apply.

swing with the bases loaded.....grand slam!!!
There is no such thing as talking black...and I must say that my own people are guilty of trying to make such a distinction.
In my community (well not my neighborhood, but you know what I mean): "talking white" is frowned upon...that thought process bothers me deeply.

 

[Kitra101]

Repeat posts and getting out of control. Closing down this thread.












Just kidding.....I am not a host or whatever...but.....would it not be nice to just simply remove race, gender, etc from the process and do it based only on who the candidate is, what their stats look like, what ECs that have participated in, etc? In terms of financial aid, sure, look at economic hardship, but in terms of acceptance, whats wrong with a level playing field where the adcoms are blind to color, race, creed, sexual orientation, age, religion, preferences in vegetables, size of muscles, use of third person references or dorsal fins coming out of the applicants back? I mean, call me an idealist, but I dont think that dorsal fin determines the quality of the student.

 

[Vizsla]

Repeat posts and getting out of control. Closing down this thread.

Just kidding.....I am not a host or whatever...but.....would it not be nice to just simply remove race, gender, etc from the process and do it based only on who the candidate is, what their stats look like, what ECs that have participated in, etc? In terms of financial aid, sure, look at economic hardship, but in terms of acceptance, whats wrong with a level playing field where the adcoms are blind to color, race, creed, sexual orientation, age, religion, preferences in vegetables, size of muscles, use of third person references or dorsal fins coming out of the applicants back? I mean, call me an idealist, but I dont think that dorsal fin determines the quality of the student.

bc med schools dont believe a completely merit based system would be successful in producing an increased number of minority physicians...so they use AA instead. They believe that assessing applicants solely on merit is disadvantageous to minorities bc they have had less access to educational programs due to racial/financial disparities.

 

[Kitra101]

Maybe they could look into financial disparities only as that is what causes an educational disadvantage. I am just saying, I have browsed SDN and seen some numbers. Based on the profile alone, when you go to an ivy league school and end up with an MCAT and GPA lower than the schools you get accepted to normally average, how can you say that the applicant was educationally disadvantaged? An ivy league school is an ivy league school.

 

[NotAnMD]

Maybe they could look into financial disparities only as that is what causes an educational disadvantage. I am just saying, I have browsed SDN and seen some numbers. Based on the profile alone, when you go to an ivy league school and end up with an MCAT and GPA lower than the schools you get accepted to normally average, how can you say that the applicant was educationally disadvantaged? An ivy league school is an ivy league school.

Its hard to argue with that. Its a balanced equation.

Ivy League School = Ivy League School

and

Hollywood Upstairs Medical College = Dr. Nick

 

[Touchdown]

Maybe they could look into financial disparities only as that is what causes an educational disadvantage. I am just saying, I have browsed SDN and seen some numbers. Based on the profile alone, when you go to an ivy league school and end up with an MCAT and GPA lower than the schools you get accepted to normally average, how can you say that the applicant was educationally disadvantaged? An ivy league school is an ivy league school.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! The final, fair solution when it comes to AA. I have no problem cutting people who had a tough childhood a little slack, however I know too many suburbanites that are hitching a ride to the AA train when they had no more disadvantages then the normal applicant.

 

[Vizsla]

Maybe they could look into financial disparities only as that is what causes an educational disadvantage. I am just saying, I have browsed SDN and seen some numbers. Based on the profile alone, when you go to an ivy league school and end up with an MCAT and GPA lower than the schools you get accepted to normally average, how can you say that the applicant was educationally disadvantaged? An ivy league school is an ivy league school.

yeah but some argue that educational disadvantages can also be brought on by racism towards minorities...and again, i think the central idea of AA is to produce minority physicians who will then serve a large number of minority pateints.

 

[riceman04]

bc med schools dont believe a completely merit based system would be successful in producing an increased number of minority physicians...so they use AA instead. They believe that assessing applicants solely on merit is disadvantageous to minorities bc they have had less access to educational programs due to racial/financial disparities.

you have been benched for the season!

 

[riceman04]

yeah but some argue that educational disadvantages can also be brought on by racism towards minorities...and again, i think the central idea of AA is to produce minority physicians who will then serve a large number of minority pateints.

news flash on espn: Vizla has been reinstated and is temporarily on probation

pass those ribs marzd and that kool-aid

 

[Vizsla]

you have been benched for the season!

notice how I used "they" and "med schools" as the ones expressing those opinions. obviously my own beliefs are quite different...but thanks for reinstating me

 

[dbhvt]

Those subscores aren't necessarily from one person though. The person at Stanford was probably a 4-15-15 or something ridiculous.

And probably not a native English speaker. It's ridiculously hard to read for structure and subtext as a non-native speaker.

 

[Mixtli]

What I don't get is, that the average URM matriculating scores are ~25-26/3.3 while for all others it is ~30/3.5-3.6. Looking at MDapplicants, a lot of URM get in with sub-30 MCATS to top 20 schools coming from Ivies. A lot of URM get into Ivies with subpar SATs and GPA. I don't mind AA, as long it is socioeconomic based, but often a rich, suburban URM rides the AA from high school to college to med school. Where does it end?

 

[Sanctuary]

What I don't get is, that the average URM matriculating scores are ~25-26/3.3 while for all others it is ~30/3.5-3.6. Looking at MDapplicants, a lot of URM get in with sub-30 MCATS to top 20 schools coming from Ivies. A lot of URM get into Ivies with subpar SATs and GPA. I don't mind AA, as long it is socioeconomic based, but often a rich, suburban URM rides the AA from high school to college to med school. Where does it end?

You raise an interesting point. However, I am curious to know exactly how many URMs constitute "a lot". In addition, what is the level of frequency for "often"? Or are those statements just your own personal observations? It makes it a heck of a lot easier for others to understand your claims when you specify solid data (eg, x% of URMs getting accepted into 'ivies' are rich, suburban kids 'riding' the AA).

I know it's late in the evening and you may not feel like validating your claims. So, if you can muster the strength to find me some links, I'll calculate the statistics for ya. 😉 (I knew my statistics major would pay off someday)

 

[EndSong]

I think you have a point Mixti. I know quite a few black people who came from very well-to-do backgrounds who didn't seem to need to push themselves as hard to succeed. I also know a few who are completely amazing and whole-heartedly deserved their acceptance despite subpar scores. I knew one guy at UCLA, URM, who got a girl pregnant when he was 16 and supported a family throughout college.

As far as medical school selection goes and its irresponsibility - I think it makes sense. A medical school is like an investor and like any good investor, its logical to seek a diverse portfolio in case any single type of investment goes down the drain. Thus, they seek as diverse a class as they're willing to risk.

What of course is unethical is preferring people due to skin color, regardless of the type of skin color. Sure many Hispanics, Native Americans and African-Americans face more difficulties in pursuing higher education. In general, those three "races" tend to be highly correlated with greater rates of crime, violence, low education, and poverty. But correlation is not absolute, and people on the forum are exactly right in that some people get in with much lower stats, same socio-cultural-economic background, just because of their race. This is no better than the discrimination that AA was supposed to combat.

Of course, the justification for this is that URMs are more likely to serve in their communities. Also, for example, black patients are more willing to trust a black physician after scandals like the Tuskegee debacle. Of course, what this boils down to is the end justifies the means. I wonder if this is the kind of moral message the Admission councils should be giving to its entering student body. As long as the result is fair, it doesn't matter if unjust or unfair means are used.

 

[ladyballa1492]

Med students from "top tier" med schools all tend to have terrific numbers, terrific ecs, and terrific essays. It's hard to compare, especially as different schools have different philosophies. (WashU is known around here as a "numbers *****.") But I don't see the point of restricting the discussion to 20 or so schools. There are plenty of other great schools that are nearly as hard to get into.

it is significant because, as I indicated in my earlier post, 25% of all African American physicians come from either Meharry, Morehouse, or Howard. And being honest with ourselves, the stats to get into these schools (regardless of their HBCU status) is not the same as the stats required to get into JHU or Yale. So with all the numbers and stats that flow around about minorities having lower stats overall, all I am potentially posing is that the figures could be a bit skewed in that a significant proportion of minorities go to schools that are not top tier med schools.

 

[ladyballa1492]

What I don't get is, that the average URM matriculating scores are ~25-26/3.3 while for all others it is ~30/3.5-3.6. Looking at MDapplicants, a lot of URM get in with sub-30 MCATS to top 20 schools coming from Ivies. A lot of URM get into Ivies with subpar SATs and GPA. I don't mind AA, as long it is socioeconomic based, but often a rich, suburban URM rides the AA from high school to college to med school. Where does it end?

you said that a lot of URMs get into top 20 schools coming from Ivies...
i think MDapplicants as a whole is a problematic source for drawing any sort of conclusions...but for the sake of argument, I did a search on the site for all African-American studens with a 30 or less MCAT that got into any medical school. 41 results came up. Of those 41, only 2 people came from an Ivy or comparable institution that got into a top 20 school. did you search on MDapplicants using different search parameters?

"but often a rich, suburban URM..." - what exactly is "often"? Not to say that this is you, but I think it is unfair when people make such judgments based on the 2-3 people that they know. Again, as a URM from an Ivy League school, I can say with full confidence that close to 80% of the African-American/Hispanic students that I encountered were on a federal work-study of some sort. in fact, the recent increase in URMs attending my school was specifically because the institution just put in place a pretty good need-based financial aid policy.

 

[Touchdown]

lady balla, I dont think that anyone here is going to disagree with the fact that a disproportionate amount of URMs are poor, and they are the ones who should be getting the AA. Getting rid of the "rich suburban URMs" is simply just trimming off the fat.

On another note, I find it interesting that so many people here bring up the "URMs feel more confertable with URM doctor" arguement. Imagine if a white male told a URM doctor that he prefers to have a white doctor because they understand him better and then asks to be transfered. Do you honestly think that wouldnt piss that person off and make them feel like they had just met a racisit? I honestly dont see how that opinion in a URM is any different, and while Im sure it is out there among patients; is it really an idea we want to foster by trying to match doctors by race?

 

[Kitra101]

forget the fact "often" vs even 5-6% or even 1....if any applicant is not viewed as an applicant and gets into a school with below the GPA and MCAT average and does not stand out for any other reasons, well, that is not fair. People should be assessed blindly...or else at least taking into account economic factors. People can argue that being a URM even when at the same undergrad as non-URMs is still a disadvantage due to racism, but the fact is that you do how you do on your exams in class and on the mcat. I did not do stellar on the mcat and thus, I knew it was a waste of time applyig to many schools. However, it would be unfair to pretend that my mcat was as high as others when it was not based solely on the color of my skin, my religion, sexual preference, age, gender or any other factor that has nothing to do with my GPA, MCAT, ECs, etc. Again, I totally understand preference to kids who could not afford similar education, but to those I competed side by side with, I mean, it is what it is...no?

 

[NotAnMD]

You raise an interesting point. However, I am curious to know exactly how many URMs constitute "a lot". In addition, what is the level of frequency for "often"? Or are those statements just your own personal observations? It makes it a heck of a lot easier for others to understand your claims when you specify solid data (eg, x% of URMs getting accepted into 'ivies' are rich, suburban kids 'riding' the AA).

I know it's late in the evening and you may not feel like validating your claims. So, if you can muster the strength to find me some links, I'll calculate the statistics for ya. 😉 (I knew my statistics major would pay off someday)

Look it...I dont think that this kind of research exists that you want people opposing AA to cite. This would be a study that finds what % of people benefiting from AA in med school admissions and merit scholarships are, in fact, economically and socially disadvantaged! That's nearly undefinable and certainly subjective. You would have to define "benefiting from AA" - no adcom would ever give you #'s on that. And you would have to define their difficulty - can't be done. Not to mention that anyone who tried to do a study like this would probably be labled a bigot. (just my opinion)

Also, keep in mind that we are talking here on SDN about our opinions. Facts and figures are great and can be very helpful. But nothing will shape someone's opinion on AA as much as personally knowing someone who has abused AA or deservingly benefitted from it. The people I know who have benefitted have had every advantage that I ever had, and that is frustating at the very least. This argument will never go anywhere because we all have such strong opinions and don't want to change. So to make ourselves feel better, we bitch and moan on SDN (I know that's all this is, and for the most part it's entertaining and enjoyable).

Though I would like to challenge those supporters of AA who are actually URM's to think about why they support it so vehemently. Is it because it's fair and a beneefit to society, or is it because it benefits you in a tangible way? Hypothetically speaking, if there was a situation where dramatically lowering admissions standards for white applicants alone would cause a measurable benefit to the URM community and society as a whole, would you support that policy? I think that most wouldn't (and I can't wait to get flamed for this one, but it's true). The AA argument is pretty flimsy in both logic and rationale...nothing else in our capitalist society works this way. It's a form of discrimination. Helping one applicant will always hurt the next guy...it's called cost. But now that AA does exist, it's much easier to argue retrospectively for it's continuence, especially for those who are benefitting from it. So tell me what you think about that or just flame away.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Look it...I dont think that this kind of research exists that you want people opposing AA to cite. This would be a study that finds what % of people benefiting from AA in med school admissions and merit scholarships are, in fact, economically and socially disadvantaged! That's nearly undefinable and certainly subjective. You would have to define "benefiting from AA" - no adcom would ever give you #'s on that. And you would have to define their difficulty - can't be done. Not to mention that anyone who tried to do a study like this would probably be labled a bigot. (just my opinion)

Also, keep in mind that we are talking here on SDN about our opinions. Facts and figures are great and can be very helpful. But nothing will shape someone's opinion on AA as much as personally knowing someone who has abused AA or deservingly benefitted from it. The people I know who have benefitted have had every advantage that I ever had, and that is frustating at the very least. This argument will never go anywhere because we all have such strong opinions and don't want to change. So to make ourselves feel better, we bitch and moan on SDN (I know that's all this is, and for the most part it's entertaining and enjoyable).

Though I would like to challenge those supporters of AA who are actually URM's to think about why they support it so vehemently. Is it because it's fair and a beneefit to society, or is it because it benefits you in a tangible way? Hypothetically speaking, if there was a situation where dramatically lowering admissions standards for white applicants alone would cause a measurable benefit to the URM community and society as a whole, would you support that policy? I think that most wouldn't (and I can't wait to get flamed for this one, but it's true). The AA argument is pretty flimsy in both logic and rationale...nothing else in our capitalist society works this way. It's a form of discrimination. Helping one applicant will always hurt the next guy...it's called cost. But now that AA does exist, it's much easier to argue retrospectively for it's continuence, especially for those who are benefitting from it. So tell me what you think about that or just flame away.

I think you are posting sentiments that have already been posted on this thread... http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260
I am pretty sure you'll find the response if you look hard enough 🙂

 

[riceman04]

I think you are posting sentiments that have already been posted on this thread... http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260
I am pretty sure you find the response if you look hard enough 🙂

pass that chicken Newton!
I love my babyback babyback babyback babyback ribs!!!...with BBQ sauce 😀

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

pass that chicken Newton!
I love my babyback babyback babyback babyback ribs!!!...with BBQ sauce 😀

 

[autoimmunity]

Look it...I dont think that this kind of research exists that you want people opposing AA to cite. This would be a study that finds what % of people benefiting from AA in med school admissions and merit scholarships are, in fact, economically and socially disadvantaged! That's nearly undefinable and certainly subjective. You would have to define "benefiting from AA" - no adcom would ever give you #'s on that. And you would have to define their difficulty - can't be done. Not to mention that anyone who tried to do a study like this would probably be labled a bigot. (just my opinion)

Also, keep in mind that we are talking here on SDN about our opinions. Facts and figures are great and can be very helpful. But nothing will shape someone's opinion on AA as much as personally knowing someone who has abused AA or deservingly benefitted from it. The people I know who have benefitted have had every advantage that I ever had, and that is frustating at the very least. This argument will never go anywhere because we all have such strong opinions and don't want to change. So to make ourselves feel better, we bitch and moan on SDN (I know that's all this is, and for the most part it's entertaining and enjoyable).

Though I would like to challenge those supporters of AA who are actually URM's to think about why they support it so vehemently. Is it because it's fair and a beneefit to society, or is it because it benefits you in a tangible way? Hypothetically speaking, if there was a situation where dramatically lowering admissions standards for white applicants alone would cause a measurable benefit to the URM community and society as a whole, would you support that policy? I think that most wouldn't (and I can't wait to get flamed for this one, but it's true). The AA argument is pretty flimsy in both logic and rationale...nothing else in our capitalist society works this way. It's a form of discrimination. Helping one applicant will always hurt the next guy...it's called cost. But now that AA does exist, it's much easier to argue retrospectively for it's continuence, especially for those who are benefitting from it. So tell me what you think about that or just flame away.

Man, you're such a bigot!









😉

 

[Thundrstorm]

How is it not irresponsible? Scores that low indicate serious intellectual deficiencies, or, at very least, a complete inability to perform under pressure. Since both reasonable intellectual capacity and grace under pressure are required of physicians, it seems irresponsible across the board. It's even more irresponsible at top schools, where competition is keen and extremely talented, qualified individuals are being denied spots in favor of Mr. Stanford 4.

Intellectual deficiency? Wow, I didn't know the MCAT measured that. First, keep in mind that you have no idea what the person's composite score is. As someone mentioned baove, the 4 or 6 in Verbal could've been a non-native speaker who knocked the science sections out of the park. Secondly, the lowest scores listed in the BS and PS sections are 7s, 8s, and 9s... hardly indicators of intellectual deficiency in my opinion. My PS was an 8, and neither I nor multiple med and MSTP adcoms think I'm deficient in my mental abilities. You shouldn't assume so much from one section of one test. 🙄

 

[riceman04]

Look it...I dont think that this kind of research exists that you want people opposing AA to cite. This would be a study that finds what % of people benefiting from AA in med school admissions and merit scholarships are, in fact, economically and socially disadvantaged! That's nearly undefinable and certainly subjective. You would have to define "benefiting from AA" - no adcom would ever give you #'s on that. And you would have to define their difficulty - can't be done. Not to mention that anyone who tried to do a study like this would probably be labled a bigot. (just my opinion)

Also, keep in mind that we are talking here on SDN about our opinions. Facts and figures are great and can be very helpful. But nothing will shape someone's opinion on AA as much as personally knowing someone who has abused AA or deservingly benefitted from it. The people I know who have benefitted have had every advantage that I ever had, and that is frustating at the very least. This argument will never go anywhere because we all have such strong opinions and don't want to change. So to make ourselves feel better, we bitch and moan on SDN (I know that's all this is, and for the most part it's entertaining and enjoyable).

Though I would like to challenge those supporters of AA who are actually URM's to think about why they support it so vehemently. Is it because it's fair and a beneefit to society, or is it because it benefits you in a tangible way? Hypothetically speaking, if there was a situation where dramatically lowering admissions standards for white applicants alone would cause a measurable benefit to the URM community and society as a whole, would you support that policy? I think that most wouldn't (and I can't wait to get flamed for this one, but it's true). The AA argument is pretty flimsy in both logic and rationale...nothing else in our capitalist society works this way. It's a form of discrimination. Helping one applicant will always hurt the next guy...it's called cost. But now that AA does exist, it's much easier to argue retrospectively for it's continuence, especially for those who are benefitting from it. So tell me what you think about that or just flame away.

News flash: Not an MD has been benched without pay...everyone thought that after visiting balco he would have at least made a connection with one pitch thrown...I guess Barry Bonds was the exception!!!

Pass that BBQ yall!

This would be a study that finds what % of people benefiting from AA in med school admissions and merit scholarships are, in fact, economically and socially disadvantaged! That's nearly undefinable and certainly subjective.

The UC's do!

 

[NotAnMD]

I think you are posting sentiments that have already been posted on this thread... http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260
I am pretty sure you'll find the response if you look hard enough 🙂

That's fine. I've never read that post, as I am sure many others haven't. This forum is having a continuing discussion that I am enjoying.

 

[skypilot]

it is significant because, as I indicated in my earlier post, 25% of all African American physicians come from either Meharry, Morehouse, or Howard. And being honest with ourselves, the stats to get into these schools (regardless of their HBCU status) is not the same as the stats required to get into JHU or Yale. So with all the numbers and stats that flow around about minorities having lower stats overall, all I am potentially posing is that the figures could be a bit skewed in that a significant proportion of minorities go to schools that are not top tier med schools.

True, then throw all the state schools and the DO schools into the mix and realize that all the hullabaloo is a non issue. Yes there are some B students being trained as physicians. So what?

 

[infiniti]

I see a lot of people complaining "about URM's that had the same live and opportunity that I did". How in the world do you know if the URM in your class had the same life you did. Taking Calc II in the same room as someone doesn't mean you know anything about them.

I am going to go on a limb and say it is probably true that most of you guys posting such crap haven't had any meaningful contact with URM's (getting drunk together at the local frat doesn't count-that is, if the URMs feel comfortable enough to go there)


In terms of matriculation #'s for URM's (specifically referring to AA here), I am surprised people here (except for 2 or 3 people who posted above) are ignoring the fact that HBCU's take almost a 3rd of all matriculating African Americans. Look at the website for those schools and you will see that their averages are quite low relative to say, top 10 med schools. Those numbers are averages, which means aproximately 30 to 50 % are below or above. This fact by itself has seriously drags down the average for URM's matriculating at non HBCU.

This also implies that non HBCU are accepting black students at a ridiculously low rate. If you take out all the students going to Historically black medical schools, the acceptance rate of black students goes to a shameful level. So what preference are you guys talking about and how many people get this "preferential treatment".

As a black student who attended a well regarded undergrad, I can tell you that most URM's who interviewed with me (most schools try to interview URMs around the same time so they can give the impression of being diverse) at several of the top schools had very high numbers. Top schools don't really waste their time chasing around mediocre students. These schools get the creme of the crop regardless of demographics.

It is funny that I never see coveted non URM students posting about this issue. Medicals schools do not only dance to the tunes of top URM's but top students in general. Top applicants (that is great numbers + other great qualities) regardless of race, often have their informal acceptance right after interviewing

 

[WhatUpDoc!]

Though I would like to challenge those supporters of AA who are actually URM's to think about why they support it so vehemently. Is it because it's fair and a beneefit to society, or is it because it benefits you in a tangible way? Hypothetically speaking, if there was a situation where dramatically lowering admissions standards for white applicants alone would cause a measurable benefit to the URM community and society as a whole, would you support that policy?

That depends what you mean by "measurable benefit." Are you talkin money, free access to health care, free hot wings at Hooters for minorities? I choose d. Your question cannot be answered based on the information given above

 

[Vizsla]

I think you are posting sentiments that have already been posted on this thread... http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=245260
I am pretty sure you'll find the response if you look hard enough 🙂

Is this the only reason you visit this thread? to post a link to that discussion multiple times? Congrats, everyone gets it... nothing new has been presented...satisfied? but this wont stop people from posting anyways so get over it. If youre tired of reading the same old **** then dont visit the thread.

 

[NotAnMD]

That depends what you mean by "measurable benefit." Are you talkin money, free access to health care, free hot wings at Hooters for minorities? I choose d. Your question cannot be answered based on the information given above

Dude, give me a break. You know what I am getting at. If you want to define it, go for it and then answer. It's not a question of semantics. I just think people are looking out for themselves. People tend to find justification for things that benefit them.

But seriously whatupdoc...what do think about that hypothetical situation. I don't think you would be in favor of it.

 

[autoimmunity]

It is funny that I never see coveted non URM students posting about this issue. Medicals schools do not only dance to the tunes of top URM's but top students in general. Top applicants (that is great numbers + other great qualities) regardless of race, often have their informal acceptance right after interviewing

Thanks for the OBVIOUS. Of course many coveted non-URMs aren't going to pay a ton of attention to it. Why? Another OBVIOUS: because they probably don't feel as though it greatly affects them. Some of the posters you speak of chime in on this issue because they feel as though they lie in the same range as many of the URMs but are pushed to the side due to race.

Then again, there are also coveted AND non-coveted non-URMs who will post on this topic because it INTERESTS them.

In the same way that many of those opposed to AA should avoid making blanket statements about the policy, you too should avoid making blanket statements about AA detractors.

 

[autoimmunity]

Is this the only reason you visit this thread? to post a link to that discussion multiple times? Congrats, everyone gets it... nothing new has been presented...satisfied? but this wont stop people from posting anuways so get over it. If youre tired of reading the same old **** then dont visit the thread.

Thank you for putting that out there 🙂