URM? Any Insights from adcoms or interviewers?

[familyaerospace]

Yeah, maybe I don't understand what you mean when you say that you have low blood or high blood or that your brother had sick as hell anemia before he died. I'm just here because I got a scholarship in exchange for agreeing to be your doctor.

I formally propose changing the name of sickle cell anemia to sick-as-hell anemia.

Given how some people look when they are in a sickle cell crisis, sick-as-hell is very appropriate.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[familyaerospace]

Who knows, blame our inequality and social programs and education programs that create that situation from the start maybe, but unfortunately med schools get dealt a particular hand where they really need diversity, yet the system doesn't provide them anywhere near adequate amounts of qualified applicants.

And still not all the qualified URMs get in for whatever reason.

At least so says the mixed race URM SES with a fairly strong app.

 

[andreamx]

It bothers me when people see this as unethical. If you look at the history of URM treatment in the United States you will learn what unethical really is.

I think that many people forget the original intentions of affirmative action programs. I am a black student and I completely support giving URM students a small boost. Not just because I am black, but I think many fail to look at why it is necessary.

Both of my parents grew up facing extreme systematic racism. My dad was legally not allowed to go to school with other races until he was in 8th grade, and for my mom, 6th grade. They were spat on while walking to school and racist extremist groups were a real everyday threat. They feared for their safety going to a non HBCU. My dads family was broken up just so they could legally stay in housing projects (able bodied black men were not permitted to live in a housing project). This did not affect my family, but the war on drugs policies also destroyed many families and their economic potential. Many black families are still affected by this type of systematic racism that went on and it doesn't end in one generation as some people still believe.

So, not only does affirmative action attempt to help these wrongdoings, but it also helps produce doctors that are more likely to return to these communities and help them. Never before has one group been targeted so heavily by systematic racism in the United States, and it's not as if they came here as willing immigrants. (That's not to say other groups have it easy!)

To put it simply, when similar applications are present, no doubt in my mind, the URM should get the spot. I know many will disagree with this, but until you have experienced these disadvantages, I don't think you can even begin to understand this type of necessary reparation. The system is not perfect,I get that. But I also think a lot of people overestimate how many spots black URM Take. Discounting HBCU's, there aren't THAT many spots being filled by black URM.

 

[Goro]

A lot of overacheivers think that high GPA and MCAT scores alone entitle them to a seat in medical school.

I dunno why, but it still amazes me how many of these threads get started every week. It's laughable to call any of it racism when almost every medical school class is what, like 80% White/Asian? Underserved areas need physicians and minority physicians are, on average, more likely to go work there. And it's not because they are getting loan forgiveness to go there. It's because they want to go back and serve the community that they grew up in. And because they actually want to be there, they are probably going to be more invested in their patients and provide overall better care.

 

[Mr Interesting]

@Goro Definitely, I couldn't agree more. The problem is premeds love to look at things from a formulaic approach. “Surely if I do X and Y and Z I will be guaranteed a seat in medical school.” However, they fail to realize there are many different contributing factors that determine whether or not they get into a particular school. In most cases these factors are purely subjective. Things like whether you fit that schools mission statement. You might feel you are a good fit for a particular school but they may not feel the same way. And they are within their rights to pass on you and take someone else. Med schools receive thousands of applications every year so they can afford to be as picky as they want to be.

 

[deleted480308]

@Goro Definitely, I couldn't agree more. The problem is premeds love to look at things from a formulaic approach. “Surely if I do X and Y and Z I will be guaranteed a seat in medical school.” However, they fail to realize there are many different contributing factors that determine whether or not they get into a particular school. In most cases these factors are purely subjective. Things like whether you fit that schools mission statement. You might feel you are a good fit for a particular school but they may not feel the same way. And they are within their rights to pass on you and take someone else. Med schools receive thousands of applications every year so they can afford to be as picky as they want to be.

they certainly can look at more than gpa/mcat...but using race as a contributing factor is a lot different than using volunteer hours or a personal statement

racial discrimination is wrong. even if you wanted to pull the "meet the mission" card, you would have to simultaneously advocate for some school that specifically wanted to make sure we found rich white doctors who would identify with the generationally wealthy.

I get the appeal of social engineering because you think you can solve the problems of the past, but this is a method that gives points to those who may not have been wronged (because they look like people who were) at the expense of people who may not have done wrong (because they either look like people who did or they bear the amcas burden of being asian)

 

[Mr Interesting]

they certainly can look at more than gpa/mcat...but using race as a contributing factor is a lot different than using volunteer hours or a personal statement

racial discrimination is wrong. even if you wanted to pull the "meet the mission" card, you would have to simultaneously advocate for some school that specifically wanted to make sure we found rich white doctors who would identify with the generationally wealthy.

I get the appeal of social engineering because you think you can solve the problems of the past, but this is a method that gives points to those who may not have been wronged (because they look like people who were) at the expense of people who may not have done wrong (because they either look like people who did or they bear the amcas burden of being asian)

I'm sorry but are wealthy white people in any way underserved medically? Were they lied to and used as lab rats for experimental drugs before, now they are afraid to go to the doctor? Truth is many of these medical schools started as "whites only" medical schools and that's one of the reasons that got us in this mess to begin with..

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

they certainly can look at more than gpa/mcat...but using race as a contributing factor is a lot different than using volunteer hours or a personal statement

racial discrimination is wrong. even if you wanted to pull the "meet the mission" card, you would have to simultaneously advocate for some school that specifically wanted to make sure we found rich white doctors who would identify with the generationally wealthy.

I get the appeal of social engineering because you think you can solve the problems of the past, but this is a method that gives points to those who may not have been wronged (because they look like people who were) at the expense of people who may not have done wrong (because they either look like people who did or they bear the amcas burden of being asian)

If, for some reason, that group suddenly become under-served in medicine, then sure. But I think there are plenty of physicians willing to be rich. That would be quite the mission statement.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm sorry but are wealthy white people in any way underserved medically? Were they lied to and used as lab rats for experimental drugs before, now they are afraid to go to the doctor? Truth is many of these medical schools started as "whites only" medical schools and that's what got us in this mess to begin with..

If, for some reason, that group suddenly become under-served in medicine, then sure. But I think there are plenty of physicians willing to be rich. That would be quite the mission statement.

nice sidestep guys... is racial discrimination wrong to you or not?

 

[Mr Interesting]

nice sidestep guys... is racial discrimination wrong to you or not?

Sidestep? Your argument was ridiculous. Of course racial discrimination is wrong but I don't think med schools finding ways to address health concerns in our country is racist. When medical schools decided to recruit more women to help address specific medical needs that affect so many women, were they being sexist? Like I said, med schools receive enough applications they can afford to be picky. If they want a diverse class so be it.

 

[Flashfan]

I refuse to call giving a small preference to URMs racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is alive and well in America, but it is not happening to me- a suburban white guy. I do hope that med schools will give me some consideration for my SES-01 status, but even growing up poor is nothing compared to the stuff that happened to my classmates, friends and girlfriend.

 

[MangoPlant]

When a white patient opts to choose a white doctor over a black/hispanic doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with the white doctor, that patient is just another racist.

When a black/hispanic patient opts to choose a black/hispanic doctor over a white doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with a doctor of his/her own race, that's perfectly okay because "studies" have shown that doctors of the same race as their patients are able to provide much better care to their patients.

 

[BeancheBlanco]

When a white patient opts to choose a white doctor over a black/hispanic doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with the white doctor, that patient is just another racist.

When a black/hispanic patient opts to choose a black/hispanic doctor over a white doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with a doctor of his/her own race, that's perfectly okay because "studies" have shown that doctors of the same race as their patients are able to provide much better care to their patients.

In a perfect world where there is no racism, no history, no bias, no stereotypes, equal numbers of black and white people, your argument would be perfectly logical. But that's not the world we live in. As an example, there is a gay primary care doctor in my area whose patient population is pretty much all LGBTQ. Why is that the case? Are LGBTQ people biased against straight doctors? Possibly, but it's more likely that LGBTQ people have unique issues and disparities in healthcare that they do not feel are addressed by straight doctors. Are you aware of what the specific issues and disparities are in healthcare between gays and straights? Trans and non-trans? Different gender identifications? Can you name them to me right now without doing any research? If not, then that is exactly why the LGBTQ community prefers LGBTQ doctors.

 

[Mr Interesting]

When a white patient opts to choose a white doctor over a black/hispanic doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with the white doctor, that patient is just another racist.

When a black/hispanic patient opts to choose a black/hispanic doctor over a white doctor because he/she feels more "comfortable" with a doctor of his/her own race, that's perfectly okay because "studies" have shown that doctors of the same race as their patients are able to provide much better care to their patients.

I don't think this is about being "comfortable." This has everything to do with trust. Minorities have a hard time trusting white doctors because of history. History affects present life and affects how we perceive things. Medically, what we have done to many minority populations is disgusting and it isn't a shock that many of them do not trust white doctors. They know they are competent but some of them are still fearful of being used as guinea pigs for some experimental drug or procedure. It sucks because everyone loses but this is changing with time.

 

[listener23]

Warning Anecdotal Evidence:

When I was younger and my grandfather use to take me to see my rheumatologist ( my physician was white), every time the doctor would enter the room my grandfather would watch him intensely like a hawk. When he would suggest any new medication he was immediately and aggressively grilled. Of course I don't remember the exact conversation but i can't image my grandfather sounding very intelligent going toe to toe with a physician since he himself only finished high school. I never understood the hostile behavior until I reached high school. During a black history segment of one of my classes I learned about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment ( some even believe the bacteria was injected into test subjects but of course that part has been lost in history). Long story short, I think if I was given an African American rheumatologist ( theres not that many black doctors out there and even if it was, when you have government health care your option on were you are allowed to obtain non emergency medical treatment is limited...) my treatment would of went smoother.

Most Minority patients just don't trust white doctors. For christ's sake my freshmen year of college when I told my mother I wanted to start undergraduate research her response: " what ever that is just don't let them run test on you" ..........

 

[listener23]

Here I am, underserved community. I am not someone you would identify with culturally/racially but I'm being paid to come to this community and serve your needs. What, you don't trust me? You aren't sure I'm going to be here for the long haul but only for as long as I need to be here to pay off my loans or my service commitment? No, I don't live nearb and you didn't see me in the grocery store last week; I live in a suburb 40 miles from here where the housing isn't as run down as it is here. Yeah, maybe I don't understand what you mean when you say that you have low blood or high blood or that your brother had sick as hell anemia before he died. I'm just here because I got a scholarship in exchange for agreeing to be your doctor.

This is the greatest response in SDN history. Thank you for this.

 

[LMBLBM]

It bothers me when people see this as unethical. If you look at the history of URM treatment in the United States you will learn what unethical really is.

I think that many people forget the original intentions of affirmative action programs. I am a black student and I completely support giving URM students a small boost. Not just because I am black, but I think many fail to look at why it is necessary.

Both of my parents grew up facing extreme systematic racism. My dad was legally not allowed to go to school with other races until he was in 8th grade, and for my mom, 6th grade. They were spat on while walking to school and racist extremist groups were a real everyday threat. They feared for their safety going to a non HBCU. My dads family was broken up just so they could legally stay in housing projects (able bodied black men were not permitted to live in a housing project). This did not affect my family, but the war on drugs policies also destroyed many families and their economic potential. Many black families are still affected by this type of systematic racism that went on and it doesn't end in one generation as some people still believe.

So, not only does affirmative action attempt to help these wrongdoings, but it also helps produce doctors that are more likely to return to these communities and help them. Never before has one group been targeted so heavily by systematic racism in the United States, and it's not as if they came here as willing immigrants. (That's not to say other groups have it easy!)

To put it simply, when similar applications are present, no doubt in my mind, the URM should get the spot. I know many will disagree with this, but until you have experienced these disadvantages, I don't think you can even begin to understand this type of necessary reparation. The system is not perfect,I get that. But I also think a lot of people overestimate how many spots black URM Take. Discounting HBCU's, there aren't THAT many spots being filled by black URM.

As I said, socioeconomic should be considered, not race. I would love to see doctors like you in our society. I do agree that people with unique socioeconomic background(a person like you) should deserve a boost. However, being a member of a certain race should not automatically receive a boost. Also, I don't think number of slots being filled by URM is a big concern. One or thousands, the system is at its major fault

 

[deleted535750]

Just throwing my 2 cents into this big can of worms.

Race being a factor in any decision is racism. The assumption that race defines the life experiences of someone is absurd. If you believe your experiences as a certain race means every other person in your racial group has the same experiences and can relate to you, then you are stereotyping. Surely, race does play a factor, the extent of which is debatable, in life experiences. However, the assumption that a poor white or asian student who goes around their university's campus and collects plastic bottles to recycle for tuition money cannot relate to poor, underserved latino or black communities is ridiculous.

The assumption that someone who received a scholarship to work in underserved communities will just blow off what their patients say because they are not use to that lingo and not learn how to interact with his or her patients is insulting to the doctor who received that scholarship, and to the organization who gave the scholarship. After all, rich whites have never tried to help underserved communities in need, right? http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

The belief that your patient will better serve you because of the color of their skin and not the content in their mind or their judgement as a professional physician, not as a white, black, asian, latino male/female etc., is racist/sexist. As part of my certain racial group, for whatever it's worth, I cannot say I feel any more or less comfortable with whatever race my health care provider chooses to identify him or herself as.

See if you agree with whether or not race being a factor in admission decision is racist. If you think no, imagine you are buying a house, but the realtor decides to not sell it to you because STATISTICS show your race is more likely to be unable to pay the mortgage. Is that racist? Yeah. Let's move on.

However, diversity is desirable. But, is racism the right way to lead to diversity? That's affirmative action, racism for the purpose of diversity. Now, affirmative action does correct past wrongs, but surely, being racist to correct those past wrongs is not the right way to lead to diversity.

 

[LizzyM]

What are some ethical grounds for accepting more URMs leads to better patient care overall?
I personally believe that none-URM-physicians are fully capable of providing quality care to URM. If the society needs more diversity, should't we be focusing more on socioeconomic backgrounds of an individual, not her/his race? I think it is more discriminating to assume that an individual with a certain race requires additional 'points' to equally compete with a none-URM individual?

For above reason, I did not categorize myself as an URM, even though I 'qualified' for one. Come to think of it, Does 'URM policy' exist for applicants or for the society we live in? or for both?

Are you going to wear a bag over your head when you attend the interview? If you look like a URM and/or you sound like a URM, your interviewer might consider you a URM despite the "prefer not to answer" on your application.

The URM policy is there for society, for the subset of the population that needs physicians that they feel that they can trust.

There are very few URM applicants as a subset of the whole. The best 40% or so are offered admission and they perform well and the proportion who graduate and achieve licensure is well over 95%l

As we know, to get into medical school you need to be in the top 40% of whatever you consider your peer group to be. If you'll pardon a terrible play on words: Don't worry about the other races, run your race.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I totally get that there are various factors that are considered for admissions, but it's my understanding that most (if not all) "race controversies" for entrance to med school revolve around numbers. I mean, are the differences that egregious?! An ORM with a 3.6 33 MCAT with solid EC's should have no problem getting into med school. Maybe a URM with a 3.45 30 MCAT will receive the same "stats consideration" as the former. Or maybe I'm totally off. But unless I'm totally missing something, it's not like URM's with a 2.6 GPA and a 24 MCAT are cruising into med school.

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

I totally get that there are various factors that are considered for admissions, but it's my understanding that most (if not all) "race controversies" for entrance to med school revolve around numbers. I mean, are the differences that egregious?! An ORM with a 3.6 33 MCAT with solid EC's should have no problem getting into med school. Maybe a URM with a 3.45 30 MCAT will receive the same "stats consideration" as the former. Or maybe I'm totally off. But unless I'm totally missing something, it's not like URM's with a 2.6 GPA and a 24 MCAT are cruising into med school.

Table 19 from AAMC provides that data. Whites have avg matriculation stats of GPA 3.71 and MCAT 31.6. African Americans have GPA 3.46 and MCAT 26.8. That's an MCAT difference of 4.8 points and GPA difference of 0.25 for a total LizzyM boost of 7.3. That is a huge boost no matter how much you want to down play it. So yes if you're asking if those differences are egregious - to people who worked hard for those 7.3 lizzyM points, they are most certainly egregious.

Just because "omg it's not like URMs are taking ORM seats in large numbers" and "the acceptance stats aren't even that different" it doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

As an aside, I was talking to my mom about this the other day. She graduated from medical school in Canada, and sat on the admissions board at a top 10 primary care admission committee. She made the excellent point that when it comes to advantages and the like, people have a huge problem with URM "advantage" and affirmative action, but nobody discusses or mentions the advantages that legacy students receive in college and graduate/professional admissions. For example, it is well known that legacy "points" help to get students into top 10 schools simply by the virtue that their parent either attended the school or donates large sums of money. A school like Harvard that isn't accessible to poor students (which are statistically more likely to be minorities) may be an available option for kids whose parents are wealthy or had had past family as alums. A system like that perpetuates a cycle of keeping the wealthy families at the top schools, and begets the further separation in classes by segregating resources that are available at a medical school like Hopkins vs Kansas State.

You never see posts like this on SDN or any other post secondary forum. That sort of institutionalized unfairness is looked over because it helps the people that feel they deserve it the most. To look at that and then call URMs out as "stealing spots" is a form of hypocrisy that I wouldn't like to see in my doctor, and one that everybody should take a look at before they begin complaining about how they didn't get into college/law school/medical school because some black/Mexican/Native American person stole their spot.


Sent from my iPad using SDN Mobile

If you publish stats to legacies, women, athletes, etc like we have stats right now for race and ethnicity, you can be damn sure people would be complaining too. Too bad there aren't stats out there. Secondly, you are sadly misinformed if you think people who complain about this difference in admissions standards because of URM "stealing spots." Any sane person realizes there are but a couple thousand total URMs per year who even bother applying, so in the grand scheme of 17,000 med school seats, there is not an appreciable difference in acceptance chances for ORMs. People argue because there is an institutionalized race-based selection system that is biased - this concept itself is the point of argument. Not the literal amount of seats lost by ORMs to URMs. Please read up on arguments before posting.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Table 19 from AAMC provides that data. Whites have avg matriculation stats of GPA 3.71 and MCAT 31.6. African Americans have GPA 3.46 and MCAT 26.8. That's an MCAT difference of 4.8 points and GPA difference of 0.25 for a total LizzyM boost of 7.3. That is a huge boost no matter how much you want to down play it. So yes if you're asking if those differences are egregious - to people who worked hard for those 7.3 lizzyM points, they are most certainly egregious.

Just because "omg it's not like URMs are taking ORM seats in large numbers" and "the acceptance stats aren't even that different" it doesn't mean it's right.

I don't feel that you can absolutely quantify "working" towards a specific GPA and/or MCAT (and this applies to everyone, not just URM's). The (x)work = GPA/MCAT formula varies from person to person. And many admitted people with slightly lower GPA's have demonstrated an upward trend in their academic performance.

Also, is it really a boost if everyone takes the same boards in med school?! Maybe it's an "initial boost." And let's just say that "more work = better academic performance." In this case, the URM with lower undergrad stats has to put in more work to graduate from medical school. So in my opinion, it evens out at the end. It's not like you're automatically given a medical license and the residency of your choice simply for being admitted to medical school.

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

I don't feel that you can absolutely quantify "working" towards a specific GPA and/or MCAT (and this applies to everyone, not just URM's). The (x)work = GPA/MCAT formula varies from person to person. And many admitted people with slightly lower GPA's have demonstrated an upward trend in their academic performance.

Also, is it really a boost if everyone takes the same boards in med school?! Maybe it's an "initial boost." And let's just say that "more work = better academic performance." In this case, the URM with lower undergrad stats has to put in more work to graduate from medical school. So in my opinion, it evens out at the end. It's not like you're automatically given a medical license and the residency of your choice simply for being admitted to medical school.

I agree that the work it takes for a certain GPA/MCAT combo varies by person. But in general, a 5 point mcat and 0.25 gpa boost is huge on average. Those are not stats to just write off as "oh well, you get a little bump" no matter how you quantify it. 1 mcat point and 0.05 gpa bump? Okay you'd have a point there but these stats are very very different.

And it totally is a boost. What you are saying in the second paragraph is that people need to do equally well in med school to graduate anyway, but by then those people who had high enough stats but got rejected already lost that chance to even try med school. I'm not doubting the ability of URMs with lower stats to succeed in medical school, nor am I against URMs in any shape or form. I am against the policy itself.

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

Meh, the research has been done. I was just talking about another facet of the selection debate that i though was interesting. The seats aren't the issue, it's the system. However, the system leads to a percentage of bitter people who question the merit of such applicants. If all the people who wanted to get into medical school actually got in, do you think this topic would be as hotly debated as it is? I don't believe so. Hopefully I didn't offend, just wanted to input!


Sent from my iPad using SDN Mobile

You are right, I'm sorry if I came off as combative. That is one of the main drawbacks of race-conscious admissions (aside from the obvious). There are plenty of high-achieving URMs who get lumped in with the ones who are not high achieving because of this policy and the stereotypes it creates. But to clarify, I am equally disapproving of legacies who get a bump in admissions. I only argue on URMs because that's the only data I have (and threads get made about URMs)

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I agree that the work it takes for a certain GPA/MCAT combo varies by person. But in general, a 5 point mcat and 0.25 gpa boost is huge on average. Those are not stats to just write off as "oh well, you get a little bump" no matter how you quantify it. 1 mcat point and 0.05 gpa bump? Okay you'd have a point there but these stats are very very different.

And it totally is a boost. What you are saying in the second paragraph is that people need to do equally well in med school to graduate anyway, but by then those people who had high enough stats but got rejected already lost that chance to even try med school. I'm not doubting the ability of URMs with lower stats to succeed in medical school, nor am I against URMs in any shape or form. I am against the policy itself.

But an ORM that got "rejected" can do a post bacc or a masters (and/or boost EC's) to get admitted. I don't agree that they've lost their chance.

 

[Mr Interesting]

Table 19 from AAMC provides that data. Whites have avg matriculation stats of GPA 3.71 and MCAT 31.6. African Americans have GPA 3.46 and MCAT 26.8. That's an MCAT difference of 4.8 points and GPA difference of 0.25 for a total LizzyM boost of 7.3. That is a huge boost no matter how much you want to down play it. So yes if you're asking if those differences are egregious - to people who worked hard for those 7.3 lizzyM points, they are most certainly egregious.

Just because "omg it's not like URMs are taking ORM seats in large numbers" and "the acceptance stats aren't even that different" it doesn't mean it's right.

You keep harping on this "boost" but tell me, are people with higher stats somehow more deserving than people with lower stats?

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

You keep harping on this "boost" but tell me, are people with higher stats somehow more deserving than people with lower stats?

There's no need to put "boost" in quotation marks - no need to pretend there isn't one. And yes I do. Otherwise the MCAT would be scored "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory." You guys can defend this practice all you want. If you can sleep at night playing the race card then by all means go ahead. No need to convert me though.

 

[vrog33]

Hello everyone,

I think this would be a great short youtube clip to watch. I think this really sheds light on the issue at large. It's titled, "Unequal Opportunity Race".

 

[MangoPlant]

You keep harping on this "boost" but tell me, are people with higher stats somehow more deserving than people with lower stats?

No adcom is able to determine who is more 'deserving' of a spot without introducing their personal biases into that decision. MCAT and GPA and are easy objective measures to determine who is most deserving of a spot in medical school. For subjective measures, ECs should be used. When people on here point out that Blacks have significantly lower MCAT/GPA than Asians or Whites the common response is that MCAT and GPA are not all that determine how well of a doctor that person will be.. well what evidence is there to say that Blacks on average have better ECs so to get in with lower numbers?

 

[MangoPlant]

Hello everyone,

I think this would be a great short youtube clip to watch. I think this really sheds light on the issue at large. It's titled, "Unequal Opportunity Race".

Actually, Affirmative Action does not exist to 'make up' for past injustice. It exists to try to achieve a physician population that racially represents the patient population - a strategy that is ineffective in my opinion. If AA existed to make up for past injustices (such as slavery), than why do Hispanics also get a boost and Japanese people, who were placed in concentration camps, get a disadvantage?

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

Hello everyone,

I think this would be a great short youtube clip to watch. I think this really sheds light on the issue at large. It's titled, "Unequal Opportunity Race".

Great idea, except if you notice, there is the "chinese exclusion act" title that flies in your face in the beginning. But no biggie, Asians don't count. And neither do Jews. Or Cubans.

Also as @MangoPlant pointed out, this video is misplaced in medical school admissions. Their reasoning is as MangoPlant explains. Either way, that's a horrible way to do admissions at the undergrad level.

 

[LMBLBM]

As an aside, I was talking to my mom about this the other day. She graduated from medical school in Canada, and sat on the admissions board at a top 10 primary care admission committee. She made the excellent point that when it comes to advantages and the like, people have a huge problem with URM "advantage" and affirmative action, but nobody discusses or mentions the advantages that legacy students receive in college and graduate/professional admissions. For example, it is well known that legacy "points" help to get students into top 10 schools simply by the virtue that their parent either attended the school or donates large sums of money. A school like Harvard that isn't accessible to poor students (which are statistically more likely to be minorities) may be an available option for kids whose parents are wealthy or had had past family as alums. A system like that perpetuates a cycle of keeping the wealthy families at the top schools, and begets the further separation in classes by segregating resources that are available at a medical school like Hopkins vs Kansas State.

You never see posts like this on SDN or any other post secondary forum. That sort of institutionalized unfairness is looked over because it helps the people that feel they deserve it the most. To look at that and then call URMs out as "stealing spots" is a form of hypocrisy that I wouldn't like to see in my doctor, and one that everybody should take a look at before they begin complaining about how they didn't get into college/law school/medical school because some black/Mexican/Native American person stole their spot.


Sent from my iPad using SDN Mobile

Schools want legacy because it is beneficial to them. If someone argues that legacy admission is beneficial to the society we live in, I would punch that someone. If people argue that the only purpose of URM policy is because the society we live in wants it, I have nothing to argue.
However, as we all know, majority consensus does not make something automatically righteous.


After reading several replies under this thread, I believe there are no ethical or moral grounds for URM policy. However, if the society demands more URM physicians for whatever the reason, and medical schools decide to supply more URM physicians, so be it. Whether it is right, wrong or inefficient, if democratic society demands it, it will be done.

I personally believe that socioeconomic fact is the most important factor when it comes to diversity, not the race.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

No adcom is able to determine who is more 'deserving' of a spot without introducing their personal biases into that decision. MCAT and GPA and are easy objective measures to determine who is most deserving of a spot in medical school. For subjective measures, ECs should be used. When people on here point out that Blacks have significantly lower MCAT/GPA than Asians or Whites the common response is that MCAT and GPA are not all that determine how well of a doctor that person will be.. well what evidence is there to say that Blacks on average have better ECs so to get in with lower numbers?

They are not necessarily "easy objective measures." Although often reliable, they are only part of the pie (albeit a large portion of it). There are some with high GPA's and MCAT scores that have no business in medical school due to their personality, poor communication skills, etc. And what about the few ORM's that get admitted to highly selective schools with a 3.6 gpa and a 31 MCAT? Isn't that unfair to the rejected applicant with the 3.9 37 MCAT?!

Not to mention that the MCAT is at best a medium predictor of USMLE performancehttp://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon et al (2007) Acad Med.pdf

Moreover, the mission statements of schools vary, which means that the selection process will not be uniform.

 

[LizzyM]

I personally believe that socioeconomic fact is the most important factor when it comes to diversity, not the race.

Right, because people who have been mistreated in the past due to race or sexual orientation will look at a doctor who grew up poor and be able to tell that just by looking at them that they were once poor and that's going to make everything ok. That makes no sense.

Someone is onto something with the ECs. Did it ever occur to anyone that living as a black person is an experience like no other and that it counts as an EC that is given great weight. Ditto if you are an LGBT applicant who is out and living with whatever society is dishing out.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Schools want legacy because it is beneficial to them. If someone argues that legacy admission is beneficial to the society we live in, I would punch that someone. If people argue that the only purpose of URM policy is because the society we live in wants it, I have nothing to argue.
However, as we all know, majority consensus does not make something automatically righteous.


After reading several replies under this thread, I believe there are no ethical or moral grounds for URM policy. However, if the society demands more URM physicians for whatever the reason, and medical schools decide to supply more URM physicians, so be it. Whether it is right, wrong or inefficient, if democratic society demands it, it will be done.

I personally believe that socioeconomic fact is the most important factor when it comes to diversity, not the race.

I believe that medical schools attempt to bring SES diversity into the class by providing need-based aid. The only other way to actively recruit applicants from that community would be to require familial tax returns, personal tax returns, and god knows what else as proof.

And I would even say that affirmative action policies are an attempt to introduce members of different socioeconmic groups to a class, given that over 25% of groups that are URM are below the poverty line, and that 60% of people living below the poverty are from groups that are URM even though they only make up a total of ~28% of the population

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

Right, because people who have been mistreated in the past due to race or sexual orientation will look at a doctor who grew up poor and be able to tell that just by looking at them that they were once poor and that's going to make everything ok. That makes no sense.

Someone is onto something with the ECs. Did it ever occur to anyone that living as a black person is an experience like no other and that it counts as an EC that is given great weight. Ditto if you are an LGBT applicant who is out and living with whatever society is dishing out.

Oh right, and you can totally tell someone's gay too just by looking at them? Also this Dr. Garcia is obviously Mexican, not Cuban by look. You underestimate the hardships that poor people face when there is a huge culture gap between the rich/middle class and the poor. Also you're trying to insinuate the Obama girls have better "ECs" than the white kid who grew up in Detroit. I cannot agree with your simplified view of ORM = privileged and URM = underprivileged.

 

[Mr Interesting]

There's no need to put "boost" in quotation marks - no need to pretend there isn't one. And yes I do. Otherwise the MCAT would be scored "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory." You guys can defend this practice all you want. If you can sleep at night playing the race card then by all means go ahead. No need to convert me though.

Right, I’m going to lose sleep over a few delusional premeds thinking their “guaranteed” spots were taken away by a minority who needed a boost. It’s common knowledge that med schools recruit minority students to address health concerns in our country. The goal is to provide equal access to quality healthcare to populations who are secluded from accessing health care. It’s not really affirmative action. This isn’t some kind of hand out or reparation. This is for the good for country’s overall health and wellness. There have been numerous studies on this very topic. Interestingly enough, all the studies pretty much conclude the same way. Like it or not, minority physicians are more likely to work with poverty-stricken and underserved populations. Check out the summary table on pages 2-3 of the Commonwealth Fund’s report on disparities. It must be one giant coincidence that these are the same populations “who bear disproportionate rates of disease and who have the most limited access to care.” ( CDC Health Disparities & Inequalities Report.).

 

[Mr Interesting]

And again, I’m reposting this. The US department of Health looked into this as well.

The Rationale for Diversity in the Health Professions: A Review of the Evidence

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions October 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Several racial and ethnic minority groups and people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly underrepresented among health professionals in the United States. Underrepresented minority (URM) groups have traditionally included African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, and mainland Puerto Ricans. Numerous public and private programs aim to remedy this underrepresentation by promoting the preparedness and resources available to minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged health professions candidates, and the admissions and retention of these candidates in the health professions pipeline and workforce. In recent years, however, competing demands for resources, along with shifting public opinion about policies aimed to assist members of specific racial and ethnic groups, have threatened the base of support for “diversity programs.” Continued support for these programs will increasingly rely on evidence that they provide a measurable public benefit.

The most compelling argument for a more diverse health professions workforce is that it will lead to improvements in public health. We therefore examined the evidence addressing the contention that health professions diversity will lead to improved population health outcomes. Specifically, we searched for, reviewed, and synthesized publicly available studies addressing four separate hypotheses:

1) The service patterns hypothesis: that health professionals from racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely than others to serve racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, thereby improving access to care for vulnerable populations and in turn, improving health outcomes;

2) The concordance hypothesis: that increasing the number of racial and ethnic minority health professionals—by providing greater opportunity for minority patients to see a practitioner from their own racial or ethnic group or, for patients with limited English proficiency, to see a practitioner who speaks their primary language—will improve the quality of communication, comfort level, trust, partnership, and decision making in patient-practitioner relationships, thereby increasing use of appropriate health care and adherence to effective programs, ultimately resulting in improved health outcomes;

3) The trust in health care hypothesis: that greater diversity in the health care workforce will increase trust in the health care delivery system among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and will thereby increase their propensity to use health services that lead to improved health outcomes; and

4) The professional advocacy hypothesis: that health professionals from racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds will be more likely than others to provide leadership and advocacy for policies and programs aimed at improving health care for vulnerable populations, thereby increasing health care access and quality, and ultimately health outcomes for those populations.

We reviewed a total of 55 studies:17 for service patterns, 36 for concordance, and 2 for trust in health care. We were not able to identify any empirical studies addressing the hypothesis that greater health professions diversity results in greater advocacy or implementation of programs and policies targeting health care for minority and other disadvantaged populations. Our review generated the following findings:


• URM health professionals, particularly physicians, disproportionately serve minority and other medically underserved populations;

• minority patients tend to receive better interpersonal care from practitioners of their own race or ethnicity, particularly in primary care and mental health settings;

• non-English speaking patients experience better interpersonal care, greater medical comprehension, and greater likelihood of keeping follow-up appointments when they see a language-concordant practitioner, particularly in mental health care; and

• insufficient evidence exists as to whether greater health professions diversity leads to greater trust in health care or greater advocacy for disadvantaged populations.

CONCLUSION

Programs and policies to promote racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in the health professions are based, at least in part, on the principle that a more diverse health care workforce will improve public health. We developed a framework and reviewed publicly available evidence addressing that principle. We found that current evidence supports the notion that greater workforce diversity may lead to improved public health, primarily through greater access to care for underserved populations and better interpersonal interactions between patients and health professionals. We identified, however, several gaps in the evidence and proposed an agenda for future research that would help to fill those gaps. Conducting this research will be essential to solidifying the evidence base underlying programs and policies to increase diversity among health professionals in the United States.

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

Oh right, and you can totally tell someone's gay too just by looking at them? Also this Dr. Garcia is obviously Mexican, not Cuban by look. You underestimate the hardships that poor people face when there is a huge culture gap between the rich/middle class and the poor. Also you're trying to insinuate the Obama girls have better "ECs" than the white kid who grew up in Detroit. I cannot agree with your simplified view of ORM = privileged and URM = underprivileged.

How would you propose teasing out SES/privilege on primary applications?

 

[OneTwoThreeFour]

And again, I’m reposting this. The US department of Health looked into this as well.

The Rationale for Diversity in the Health Professions: A Review of the Evidence

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Bureau of Health Professions October 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Several racial and ethnic minority groups and people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly underrepresented among health professionals in the United States. Underrepresented minority (URM) groups have traditionally included African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, and mainland Puerto Ricans. Numerous public and private programs aim to remedy this underrepresentation by promoting the preparedness and resources available to minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged health professions candidates, and the admissions and retention of these candidates in the health professions pipeline and workforce. In recent years, however, competing demands for resources, along with shifting public opinion about policies aimed to assist members of specific racial and ethnic groups, have threatened the base of support for “diversity programs.” Continued support for these programs will increasingly rely on evidence that they provide a measurable public benefit.

The most compelling argument for a more diverse health professions workforce is that it will lead to improvements in public health. We therefore examined the evidence addressing the contention that health professions diversity will lead to improved population health outcomes. Specifically, we searched for, reviewed, and synthesized publicly available studies addressing four separate hypotheses:

1) The service patterns hypothesis: that health professionals from racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely than others to serve racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, thereby improving access to care for vulnerable populations and in turn, improving health outcomes;

2) The concordance hypothesis: that increasing the number of racial and ethnic minority health professionals—by providing greater opportunity for minority patients to see a practitioner from their own racial or ethnic group or, for patients with limited English proficiency, to see a practitioner who speaks their primary language—will improve the quality of communication, comfort level, trust, partnership, and decision making in patient-practitioner relationships, thereby increasing use of appropriate health care and adherence to effective programs, ultimately resulting in improved health outcomes;

3) The trust in health care hypothesis: that greater diversity in the health care workforce will increase trust in the health care delivery system among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and will thereby increase their propensity to use health services that lead to improved health outcomes; and

4) The professional advocacy hypothesis: that health professionals from racial and ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds will be more likely than others to provide leadership and advocacy for policies and programs aimed at improving health care for vulnerable populations, thereby increasing health care access and quality, and ultimately health outcomes for those populations.

We reviewed a total of 55 studies:17 for service patterns, 36 for concordance, and 2 for trust in health care. We were not able to identify any empirical studies addressing the hypothesis that greater health professions diversity results in greater advocacy or implementation of programs and policies targeting health care for minority and other disadvantaged populations. Our review generated the following findings:

• URM health professionals, particularly physicians, disproportionately serve minority and other medically underserved populations;

• minority patients tend to receive better interpersonal care from practitioners of their own race or ethnicity, particularly in primary care and mental health settings;

• non-English speaking patients experience better interpersonal care, greater medical comprehension, and greater likelihood of keeping follow-up appointments when they see a language-concordant practitioner, particularly in mental health care; and

• insufficient evidence exists as to whether greater health professions diversity leads to greater trust in health care or greater advocacy for disadvantaged populations.

CONCLUSION

Programs and policies to promote racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in the health professions are based, at least in part, on the principle that a more diverse health care workforce will improve public health. We developed a framework and reviewed publicly available evidence addressing that principle. We found that current evidence supports the notion that greater workforce diversity may lead to improved public health, primarily through greater access to care for underserved populations and better interpersonal interactions between patients and health professionals. We identified, however, several gaps in the evidence and proposed an agenda for future research that would help to fill those gaps. Conducting this research will be essential to solidifying the evidence base underlying programs and policies to increase diversity among health professionals in the United States.

"minority patients tend to receive better interpersonal care from practitioners of their own race or ethnicity, particularly in primary care and mental health settings"

I feel like that's the dynamite right there.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Oh right, and you can totally tell someone's gay too just by looking at them? Also this Dr. Garcia is obviously Mexican, not Cuban by look. You underestimate the hardships that poor people face when there is a huge culture gap between the rich/middle class and the poor. Also you're trying to insinuate the Obama girls have better "ECs" than the white kid who grew up in Detroit. I cannot agree with your simplified view of ORM = privileged and URM = underprivileged.

I'm of LA descent and I can honestly tell you that it's definitely an ice-breaker when interacting with other Hispanics (Mexican, South American, Caribbean etc) especially when you speak Spanish to them. You can immediately sense the comfort.

And I do agree that there is a huge cultural gap between the wealthy and the poor/working class.

 

[deleted535750]

Right, because people who have been mistreated in the past due to race or sexual orientation will look at a doctor who grew up poor and be able to tell that just by looking at them that they were once poor and that's going to make everything ok. That makes no sense.

Someone is onto something with the ECs. Did it ever occur to anyone that living as a black person is an experience like no other and that it counts as an EC that is given great weight. Ditto if you are an LGBT applicant who is out and living with whatever society is dishing out.

I thought the idea was to have a doctor who could relate to the patients' situations, not the patients being able to relate to the doctor. After all, I don't have to be a certain race or have a certain sexual preference to relate to and empathize with people of other groups. It's not like a white or asian doctor will look at a latino's, black's, homosexual's situation and think "well damn, that sucks for you, but I don't care because I'm not your race so it's not MY problem." That is absurd and the implication is insulting.

Also, what is with the assumption that all black people will have the same experiences and be able to relate to one another? I can't speak from personal experience, but I imagine the person who came from Nigeria with his/her well off parents and went to a private high school, top undergraduate and then medical school will not be very good at relating to black patients who never graduated high school. Unless, is there some kind of "mystical bond" in the melanin that connects race from across the world with each other? No, that "racial unity" is nothing but, and I'm sorry for being so blunt, racist. Also, I can't speak form personal experience, but I imagine the homosexual doctor who grew up in Hollywood will not be very good at relating to homosexual patients who grew up in rural country.

Obviously, these situations are not always the case, but that's the point. The race/sexuality does not define one's experiences, it's the individual, and to see those individuals is what the personal statement/interview is there for, I believe.

 

[mrh125]

I wish schools would apply their diversity statements and URM status to MCAT scores so they accept people of all different mcat scores. It's great when schools accept those of different backgrounds and say they don't discriminate based off of race, socioeconomic status, or sexual preference, but what about MCAT score discrimination? I'm not a number I'm a free man.

 

[Aerus]

It's scary to imagine that all these people who simply do not understand why racial diversity is necessary in med school (in addition to SES diversity) are some day going to be doctors. Compassion and understanding of struggles is something every doctor needs to have. I cannot say this enough, but I am so glad that sociology is being made a prereq. It's a step towards the right direction.

 

[Fabio Lanzoni]

It's scary to imagine that all these people who simply do not understand why racial diversity is necessary in med school (in addition to SES diversity) are some day going to be doctors. Compassion and understanding of struggles is something every doctor needs to have. I cannot say this enough, but I am so glad that sociology is being made a prereq. It's a step towards the right direction.

Your appearance is way slower than I expected

 

[Aerus]

I thought the idea was to have a doctor who could relate to the patients' situations, not the patients being able to relate to the doctor. After all, I don't have to be a certain race or have a certain sexual preference to relate to and empathize with people of other groups. It's not like a white or asian doctor will look at a latino's, black's, homosexual's situation and think "well damn, that sucks for you, but I don't care because I'm not your race so it's not MY problem." That is absurd and the implication is insulting.

Also, what is with the assumption that all black people will have the same experiences and be able to relate to one another? I can't speak from personal experience, but I imagine the person who came from Nigeria with his/her well off parents and went to a private high school, top undergraduate and then medical school will not be very good at relating to black patients who never graduated high school. Unless, is there some kind of "mystical bond" in the melanin that connects race from across the world with each other? No, that "racial unity" is nothing but, and I'm sorry for being so blunt, racist. Also, I can't speak form personal experience, but I imagine the homosexual doctor who grew up in Hollywood will not be very good at relating to homosexual patients who grew up in rural country.

Obviously, these situations are not always the case, but that's the point. The race/sexuality does not define one's experiences, it's the individual, and to see those individuals is what the personal statement/interview is there for, I believe.

This is such a sheltered view. You are obviously unaware of how racist and LGBT-opposed our society still is. Yes, many parts of the country are tolerant now, but many also aren't. While that famous hollywood homosexual doctor can't relate on a SES basis to that poor homosexual man, he certainly can understand the sexual discrimination he must have gone through.

The same applies to race. Our country is FAR from wiping out racism. We still live in a very racist society.

 

[Aerus]

Your appearance is way slower than I expected

I choose when to post and when not to post. I don't live my life on SDN, sorry.

 

[jacksonlikesturtles]

I agree that there should be racial diversity in medicine but this guy at Berkeley pissed the crap out of everyone. Everytime someone would talk about medical school he would start bragging about his URM status. This prick drives a porche 911.

I'm white, grew up in a trailer park in Oakland, parents divorced when I was 12, racially discriminated by peers since elementary school, do I get a boost too?

Ehh whatever, I got in.

 

[deleted535750]

This is such a sheltered view. You are obviously unaware of how racist and LGBT-opposed our society still is. Yes, many parts of the country are tolerant now, but many also aren't. While that famous hollywood homosexual doctor can't relate on a SES basis to that poor homosexual man, he certainly can understand the sexual discrimination he must have gone through.

The same applies to race. Our country is FAR from wiping out racism. We still live in a very racist society.

Could you please provide names of places in the country where racism is tolerated at an institutional level. Please also list sources. I am not saying you are wrong, but you are obviously making BROAD strokes with your claims and using no reasoning behind them.