URM? Any Insights from adcoms or interviewers?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Goro said:
To add to my learned colleague's comments, as I have mentioned before, merit is measured not only by GPA and MCAT score, but also by the road traveled.

What hyperachievers never seem to understand is that I could kill off every pre-med who has a GPA of 3.5+ and MCAT of 33+ and then still fill every MD seat in the US with med school capable candidates.

Therefore, if a kid with a 3.1/26 MCAT can do equally well at RVU-COM or Harvard, then med school Adcoms can pick pretty much anyone they please, and it's not discriminatory.

So why is the median GPA at Harvard 3.8? Because out of all those academic clones, those acceptees have done something else exceptional. And 10% of the class have done the exceptional, without the high GPA and/or MCAT.

One more reminder: a career in Medicine is NOT a reward for getting good grades or being an A student. It's a privilege that has to be earned.
Click to expand...

This should be the end of every URM thread. I wish I could be this concise in my personal statement.
 
littlepuddle said:
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.
Click to expand...


Have you studied intersectionality? Intersectionality is basically the study of how different forms of oppression, domination or discrimination all come together and work in interconnected ways. For example, when considering race, sex and sexual orientation: A black female heterosexual vs. a black female homosexual. Or even a white male heterosexual vs. a black female heterosexual will experience intersectionality in different ways. Black females experience intersectionality different than black males. It's not just about being black or female or homosexual independently, BUT how they all work together in interconnected ways and shape one's experience. This is why race/sex/sexual orientation/religion/class/ability all change one's experiences. It's all about being apart of the dominate or subordinate groups in society and that very much effects your experiences.

I totally think it's up to the individual to react how they will to situations, but ones races, sexual orientation, and all the others that I've listed does effect one's experiences in life. And like someone else mentioned, it's great that sociology will be required because hopefully more people will be able to be educated on this.
 
jonnythan said:
The entire system is inherently unfair due to dramatic biases all over the place.

To isolate one small portion of it and try to make that as "fair" as possible by ignoring all the biases leading up to, and following from, that single isolated point is just madness. It makes no sense at all.

Med school applications don't suddenly become "fair" if you completely ignore race when the reality is that race plays a huge part in virtually everything up to that point.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but you don't address racism in parts of society by trying to add just enough racism in others to balance it out. Racism is morally wrong...whether applied by a school district, an employer, a policeman, a restaurant owner, a bus driver, a judge, or an admissions committee with good intentions.
 
sb247 said:
I get your point, but you don't address racism in parts of society by trying to add just enough racism in others to balance it out. Racism is morally wrong...whether applied by a school district, an employer, a policeman, a restaurant owner, a bus driver, a judge, or an admissions committee with good intentions.
Click to expand...

It's not about "adding racism to balance it out." It's about targeting specific areas of society or commerce where racism inherent to the population or system has kept minority representation and opportunity artificially low. Hence the very term "under-represented minority." If the minority was accurately represented in the profession, they wouldn't be a URM, by definition.

Higher education and professional jobs such as medicine are a prime example of this.

Intentionally providing extra opportunities to well-qualified URMs in such areas is an effective way to address these artificially low levels of minority representation. It's not "racism" by any definition of the word racism; racism is attributing certain characteristics to an individual because of his race, or thinking that there are qualities inherent to a particular race. It's certainly "racial discrimination," but it is racial discrimination in an intelligent, thoughtful direction that ultimately makes our society a better and more fair place.
 
sb247 said:
I get your point, but you don't address racism in parts of society by trying to add just enough racism in others to balance it out. Racism is morally wrong...whether applied by a school district, an employer, a policeman, a restaurant owner, a bus driver, a judge, or an admissions committee with good intentions.
Click to expand...
How is an admissions committee with good intentions practicing racism?
 
jonnythan said:
It's not about "adding racism to balance it out." It's about targeting specific areas of society or commerce where racism inherent to the population or system has kept minority representation and opportunity artificially low. Hence the very term "under-represented minority." If the minority was accurately represented in the profession, they wouldn't be a URM, by definition.

Higher education and professional jobs such as medicine are a prime example of this.

Intentionally providing extra opportunities to well-qualified URMs in such areas is an effective way to address these artificially low levels of minority representation. It's not "racism" by any definition of the word racism; racism is attributing certain characteristics to an individual because of his race, or thinking that there are qualities inherent to a particular race. It's certainly "racial discrimination," but it is racial discrimination in an intelligent, thoughtful direction that ultimately makes our society a better and more fair place.
Click to expand...

you are correct about the term usage "racial discrimination" instead of "racism"....I got lazy in my typing

thank you for admitting the URM system is racial discrimination...I'm fine with people arguing that it's necessary racial discrimination but denying it's nature drives me crazy
 
Goro said:
Therefore, if a kid with a 3.1/26 MCAT can do equally well at RVU-COM or Harvard, then med school Adcoms can pick pretty much anyone they please, and it's not discriminatory.
Click to expand...

I love you for all you do for this forum (you are seriously dear to me for all your advice) but that's not correct...this is like saying Rosa Parks wasn't discriminated against because the white passenger that wanted her seat could also pay the fare...
 
jonnythan said:
Intentionally providing extra opportunities to well-qualified URMs in such areas is an effective way to address these artificially low levels of minority representation. It's not "racism" by any definition of the word racism; racism is attributing certain characteristics to an individual because of his race, or thinking that there are qualities inherent to a particular race. It's certainly "racial discrimination," but it is racial discrimination in an intelligent, thoughtful direction that ultimately makes our society a better and more fair place.
Click to expand...

Very well put. Denying there is discrimination is hypocritical at best. But yes, there is extremely good reasoning behind why this particular discriminatory policy is in place. I may not agree with it, but I can respect the thought process.
 
sb247 said:
I love you for all you do for this forum (you are seriously dear to me for all your advice) but that's not correct...this is like saying Rosa Parks wasn't discriminated against because the white passenger that wanted her seat could also pay the fare...
Click to expand...

giphy.gif

lol wut?

More false equivalences?
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Very well put. Denying there is discrimination is hypocritical at best. But yes, there is extremely good reasoning behind why this particular discriminatory policy is in place. I may not agree with it, but I can respect the thought process.
Click to expand...

The very act of choosing acceptees from a pool of applicants is discrimination. Trying to make sure that every segment of our society will have access to quality healthcare is public health policy. Do you see the difference?
 
plumazul said:
The very act of choosing acceptees from a pool of applicants is discrimination. Trying to make sure that every segment of our society will have access to quality healthcare is public health policy. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Call it what you want. There is a lower threshold for certain demographics vs. others - the stats aren't just random. Public health policy? Yes. Sound reasoning? Yes. Discriminatory? Yes. They're not mutually exclusive. It's incredibly hypocritical to pretend there isn't discrimination. I cannot respect someone if they can't even own up to the fact that there needs to be racial discrimination to achieve better public health (that's debatable but not the point here).
 
LizzyM said:
Ever hear of "driving while Asian"?
Click to expand...
Hi Lizzy, I just did a google search of "Driving while Asian" and it turned up some pretty bad and derogatory stuff, some of it referred me to "driving while oriental." I believe your intent is to bring up how bad African Americans have it in comparison to Asians especially in regard to racial profiling probably in regards to this study since the post you were replying to brought up Asians experience. I agree, I dont think they can or should be compared but for a different reason, because what usually happens is that Asian struggles and obstacles are then diminished to irrelevancy in comparison to the African American experience.

Asians face different stereotypes than African Americans and a different set of societal pressures. Yes, Asians are racially profiled, but differently and it varies on the Asian. For example, South Asians are more likely to be stopped at airports for "national security." But regardless, it does not mean African Americans struggles should be discounted or ignored and it certainly does not mean Asian American's should be either.


Ever hear of Asians getting followed around a high end store because they are expected to be shoplifters?
Click to expand...
This does happen and more than you would think, usually if the Asian does not look stereotypically Chinese with fair skin (but Chinese with fair skin have their own set of prejudices to deal with). It happens much more outside of California and New York (or Hawaii) but the problem is, when people think of Asians, they think of California or New York.


Mr Interesting said:
We get it, you hate the system. You and the rest of the same five other posters and troll accounts have made your point on every URM thread.
Click to expand...
I think there should be some sort of IP address check on topics like this (and there very well may be by our moderators). I dont believe it is this person who is making the threads. These threads are entertainment for many. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of people making these threads are neither Asian, African American, American Indian nor Latino. It also wouldn't surprise me if the person or small group of people making all these threads have no interest in the topic but just like the idea of causing a bunch of anxiety in a large group of applicants.
 
jonnythan said:
This is a great point. Unfortunately that's not something people really think about.
Click to expand...

This is a racist point. It assumes every black person or LGBT person has had the same exact experiences as each other person in their group. That because someone of one racial/sexual group has one experience, all other people in that group must have had similar experiences. That is STEREOTYPING. That method of thinking is the SAME as seeing a black person eating watermelon and thinking all black people love watermelon. You are ignoring the individual and applying those ideas to an ENTIRE group, that is labeling. Assuming blacks have had it harder, which I'm not saying they have or have not, and ignoring the individual experience of someone is attributing qualities to a race, that is stereotyping and racist.
 
Also back to MCAT scores...i think its fair to say that most people who can afford tutoring and/or Prep classes, loads of MCAT resources, afford a retake etc will probably do better (by not a few points) than those who can't. On average I would say that those not able to afford would be the URMs would lower MCAT scores. Of course thats a broad generalization and there are poor ORMs in the same situation - but the thread is already generalizing in making it sound like almost none of the URMS have scores on par with their accepted ORM peers.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Call it what you want. There is a lower threshold for certain demographics vs. others - the stats aren't just random. Public health policy? Yes. Sound reasoning? Yes. Discriminatory? Yes. They're not mutually exclusive. It's incredibly hypocritical to pretend there isn't discrimination. I cannot respect someone if they can't even own up to the fact that there needs to be racial discrimination to achieve better public health (that's debatable but not the point here).
Click to expand...
But what's the problem with discrimination that actually leads to improved public health? This isn't about the applicants that "get rejected." It's about improving the health of the population.
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
But what's the problem with discrimination that actually leads to improved public health? This isn't about the applicants that "get rejected." It's about improving the health of the population.
Click to expand...

The problem is people who justify it as not discrimination. Look back at this thread and see how many people try to justify it as something less than. Look, people will disagree about everything there can possibly be argued about. But when a party refuses to even acknowledge a base-line fact (discrimination), there cannot be further discussions on whether it is warranted or not. In this instance, I am okay with someone arguing for racial discrimination because there is a sound argument (improving public health). I don't agree with it, but it is a fair argument I can respect. When pro-URM policy supporters refuse to see any flaw in their stance, it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion.

Your stance is discrimination in the name of better public health = okay.
My stance is any discrimination = not okay.

And that's okay in my book as long as there is an acknowledgment that there is discrimination.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Call it what you want.
Click to expand...
Just stating simple fact.

There is a lower threshold for certain demographics vs. others - the stats aren't just random.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean the stats that you admitted in a previous post are flawed?

Public health policy? Yes. Sound reasoning? Yes. Discriminatory? Yes. They're not mutually exclusive. It's incredibly hypocritical to pretend there isn't discrimination.
Click to expand...
See my previous post.

I cannot respect someone if they can't even own up to the fact that there needs to be racial discrimination to achieve better public health (that's debatable but not the point here).
Click to expand...
Criteria is driven by need.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
The problem is people who justify it as not discrimination. Look back at this thread and see how many people try to justify it as something less than. Look, people will disagree about everything there can possibly be argued about. But when a party refuses to even acknowledge a base-line fact (discrimination), there cannot be further discussions on whether it is warranted or not. In this instance, I am okay with someone arguing for racial discrimination because there is a sound argument (improving public health). I don't agree with it, but it is a fair argument I can respect. When pro-URM policy supporters refuse to see any flaw in their stance, it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion.

Your stance is discrimination in the name of better public health = okay.
My stance is any discrimination = not okay.

And that's okay in my book as long as there is an acknowledgment that there is discrimination.
Click to expand...
Ok so I'll use myself as an example. Given my ethnic background, experiences, and personal interests, I am "more likely" to work with immigrant populations than others. Would it be wrong if UCLA and/or USC gave me "some preference" especially when you consider the large Latino immigrant population in Los Angeles?!
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
But what's the problem with discrimination that actually leads to improved public health? This isn't about the applicants that "get rejected." It's about improving the health of the population.
Click to expand...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Our nation has an awful history with racial discrimination. If you honestly believe giving preference to someone because of their race will have no negative repercussions in the future, then you are sorely naive.

Also, do you honestly want to live in a system where we improve the health of the population through racism?
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
Ok so I'll use myself as an example. Given my ethnic background, experiences, and personal interests, I am "more likely" to work with immigrant populations than others. Would it be wrong if UCLA and/or USC gave me "some preference" especially when you consider the large Latino immigrant population in Los Angeles?!
Click to expand...

Yep, you can argue all you want for race-based admissions. I don't care. In my book, discriminating based on stereotypes and "more likely" is wrong. By the same token, you'll never think it's wrong. Agree to disagree.
 
littlepuddle said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Our nation has an awful history with racial discrimination. If you honestly believe giving preference to someone because of their race will have no negative repercussions in the future, then you are sorely naive.

Also, do you honestly want to live in a system where we improve the health of the population through racism?
Click to expand...
It's not racism. And I cannot equate controversy over a few medical school seats with "hell." As I pointed out before, the road actually gets more difficult if you factor in board exams, residency, etc.
Maybe it's "hell" to you if a few URM's get admitted with lower stats. But the general population doesn't care if they're getting good medical treatment.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Yep, you can argue all you want for race-based admissions. I don't care. In my book, discriminating based on stereotypes and "more likely" is wrong. By the same token, you'll never think it's wrong. Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
But it's not solely "race-based admissions." There are other factors at play. Ultimately, it's up to the schools to determine who's qualified for their programs. It's not up to the applicants.
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
It's not racism. And I cannot equate controversy over a few medical school seats with "hell." As I pointed out before, the road actually gets more difficult if you factor in board exams, residency, etc.
Maybe it's "hell" to you if a few URM's get admitted with lower stats. But the general population doesn't care if they're getting good medical treatment.
Click to expand...
Is stereotyping racist? Yeah. Is assuming one person of a racial group having struggles means everyone of that racial group has struggled with the same problems stereotyping? Yeah.
Nicely done ignoring my argument and focusing on the exaggerated "hell."
The general population doesn't care? Ask someone about affirmative action, people do care since affirmative action goes beyond medical school admissions.

Cyberdyne 101 said:
But it's not solely "race-based admissions." There are other factors at play. Ultimately, it's up to the schools to determine who's qualified for their programs. It's not up to the applicants.
Click to expand...

Having race involved in any form of a decision leads to awful things. Look at our nation's history, see where including race in a decision has not lead to devastating consequences for everyone. And you're right, it is up to the schools. It was also up to store owners not to give service to blacks or the irish, the owners had no obligation to give service. That doesn't mean you shouldn't protest that mistreatment.
 
Nobody is stereotyping. It's reality, not "racism" or "stereotyping" to observe that growing up as a black person is a fundamentally different experience in this country than growing up as a white person.

And denying service to individuals because of their race is a completely different animal to what we're talking about.
 
littlepuddle said:
Is stereotyping racist? Yeah. Is assuming one person of a racial group having struggles means everyone of that racial group has struggled with the same problems stereotyping? Yeah.
Nicely done ignoring my argument and focusing on the exaggerated "hell."
The general population doesn't care? Ask someone about affirmative action, people do care since affirmative action goes beyond medical school admissions.



Having race involved in any form of a decision leads to awful things. Look at our nation's history, see where including race in a decision has not lead to devastating consequences for everyone. And you're right, it is up to the schools. It was also up to store owners not to give service to blacks or the irish, the owners had no obligation to give service. That doesn't mean you shouldn't protest that mistreatment.
Click to expand...
I believe that historically, race-based decisions have played a role in improving the morale of certain military units.

And in your argument, you see admissions as an "end." Yeah it plays a significant role in the lives of the applicants, and it might be an "end" to them. But med schools only see it as a means to a long term goal. And you can't compare applicants in the same way you compare smart phones and computers that have specific speeds and capabilities. If certain populations are medically underserved, then med schools will do what they can to fill these gaps. And it may only come down to merely predicting that a URM is just "more likely" to work with certain communities. That's far from perfect, but it's better than nothing. And isn't this also a way to distinguish ORM's from one another?! My guess is that an ORM with lower stats, but who is fluent in Spanish and has a history of working in such communities will get preference over the candidate with higher stats that lacks these qualifications.
 
Mr Interesting said:
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..
Click to expand...

I stopped reading mid thread to reply here because I think it doesn't follow logically for me:

The Tuskegee study is known by a lot of healthcare professionals, and most undergrad students that have taken basic research methods, but I bet you if you said 'Tuskegee study" to any lower middle or upper class individual of any race outside those groups, you will, for the most part, be met with a blank stare.

I just think it's reaching a bit to claim the same under served group of URMs that don't have access to good education would, for some reason, be well informed on this study or incidents like it. And then on top of that, anyone who did receiver the education that would teach them about this would probably not be the same kind of person that blindly fears for something so inhumane and medieval to happen now in 2014.

There is no good reason for any non white person in America to fear a. White doctor in this day and age.

The bigger issue in the background of URMs and affirmative action in med school is the contempt it will continue to breed.

If you could have one or the other, which would you rather have: an Anerica truly free of racial discrimination or bias, or under served communities having ample number of doctors serving them?

As long as open discrimination occurs in things like this, you will always have a source of discontent from whites and Asians who feel slighted, or who wonder if their med school class mates got in by merit or by skin color.

It's basic human nature to find an enemy in those who one feels was given preferential treatment to.

Food for thought
 
So we came to a consensus that URM policy is a racial discrimination. However, whether the discrimination is 'good' or 'bad' is still debatable?
 
jonnythan said:
Nobody is stereotyping. It's reality, not "racism" or "stereotyping" to observe that growing up as a black person is a fundamentally different experience in this country than growing up as a white person.

And denying service to individuals because of their race is a completely different animal to what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Growing up as a son of Jay Z vs Growing up as a son of poor Caucasian farmer in Texas
Growing up in a well established black family vs Growing up in as a son of white single-mom

As I mentioned, being a member of a certain race should not automatically receive a boost.
 
heartsink said:
I just think it's reaching a bit to claim the same under served group of URMs that don't have access to good education would, for some reason, be well informed on this study or incidents like it. And then on top of that, anyone who did receiver the education that would teach them about this would probably not be the same kind of person that blindly fears for something so inhumane and medieval to happen now in 2014.
Click to expand...
Your logic seems to imply that this fact is only known to certain individuals with some threshold of education. That is simply not true. It's a historical fact, there are many ways to propagate this information outside of formal education.


heartsink said:
The bigger issue in the background of URMs and affirmative action in med school is the contempt it will continue to breed.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no way for me to know which of my URM classmates were given a boost in admissions because of their race/background. Even if I did know it, it does not logically follow that I will develop contempt for them. I'm, after all, in medical school too.


heartsink said:
As long as open discrimination occurs in things like this, you will always have a source of discontent from whites and Asians who feel slighted, or who wonder if their med school class mates got in by merit or by skin color.
Click to expand...

They probably got in by a combination of things based on the school's mission and needs. Just the same as me.
 
LMBLBM said:
Growing up as a son of Jay Z vs Growing up as a son of poor Caucasian farmer in Texas
Growing up in a well established black family vs Growing up in as a son of white single-mom

As I mentioned, being a member of a certain race should not automatically receive a boost.
Click to expand...

I think that if you lived a few years as Jay Z's son your opinion might be different.
 
jonnythan said:
Look at how much racist crap gets flung Obama's way. You think his daughters are immune?
Click to expand...

..................... Fine........ A daughter of well established lawyer in Chicago
 
LMBLBM said:
..................... Fine........ A daughter of well established lawyer in Chicago
Click to expand...

Where are you going with this? You think a black kid is totally accepted and treated exactly the same as a white kid in Chicago because his dad has some money and a professional job?

You can't be serious, can you?
 
Who decides intention of racial discrimination? Society as a whole? People who are discriminating? People who are being discriminated?
What if no one can't decide because certain form of racial discrimination is good/bad by its nature?

A war to end all wars, A racial discrimination to end racial discrimination
 
jonnythan said:
Where are you going with this? You think a black kid is totally accepted and treated exactly the same as a white kid in Chicago because his dad has some money and a professional job?

You can't be serious, can you?
Click to expand...

I am serious. Everyone has an unique background which should be respected. A system set up to give a boost to any individuals of a certain race is a racial discrimination. Not all African-Americans are subject to racism.
 
LMBLBM said:
I am serious. Everyone has an unique background which should be respected. A system set up to give a boost to any individuals of a certain race is a racial discrimination. Not all African-Americans are subject to racism.
Click to expand...
This is purely anecdotal, but I've met a few ORM's with lower stats that were admitted to highly selective med schools. And this was based on their unique backgrounds.
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
This is purely anecdotal, but I've met a few ORM's with lower stats that were admitted to highly selective med schools. And this was based on their unique backgrounds.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! If you as an individual survived racial discrimination and doing awesome, YES!!! I think that individual deserve a spot more than an individual with same stat but lacking that experience. I am not trying to undermine the efforts of URM applicants. There are many URM applicants who are more privileged, and never had to go through hardship receiving automatic URM boost. I am just angry that a being a member of a certain RACE=went through hardship=deserve a boost in admission equation.
 
jonnythan said:
Look at how much racist crap gets flung Obama's way. You think his daughters are immune?
Click to expand...
Seeing as how much vitriol gets thrown at Mrs. Obama (her ass is fat, she looks like a monkey, etc) I highly doubt Malia or Sasha are somehow immune to racism
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
This is purely anecdotal, but I've met a few ORM's with lower stats that were admitted to highly selective med schools. And this was based on their unique backgrounds.
Click to expand...
I was accepted with significantly lower stats than the average. But no one is going to blame the blonde white girl for stealing their seat.
 
littlepuddle said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Our nation has an awful history with racial discrimination. If you honestly believe giving preference to someone because of their race will have no negative repercussions in the future, then you are sorely naive.

Also, do you honestly want to live in a system where we improve the health of the population through racism?
Click to expand...

I am intrigued. Please elaborate on the repercussions of answering the underserved populations. Specifics on this created "hell" would be greatly appreciated.

I will patiently wait as you comprise your list. No rush 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Any adcoms on here? Question about committee letter
Replies
8
Views
899
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
mamaMother
  • Locked
downstate interview experience/advice from previous interviewers?
Replies
2
Views
791
chilly_md
chilly_md
S
Strong LOR from non-university, or weak LOR from university
Replies
1
Views
433
The OTC
The OTC
A
Do Adcoms know AP vs P/F?
Replies
1
Views
276
jffyx _net
jffyx _net
H
  • Question Question
Question to ADCOMs: Primary typo, how bad?
Replies
10
Views
786
Hollow Knight
Hollow Knight
Top