URM? Any Insights from adcoms or interviewers?

Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
jonnythan said:
You say there is a 10-point boost. This means that being a URM is equivalent to a 10-point boost in MCAT/GPA stats.

The supplied data does not support that. Not even remotely. The data simply says that accepted white students tend to have ~10 point lower stats than accepted URMs. The URM "boost" cannot be determined because we don't know the other relevant trends.
Click to expand...
Lol okay
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Who cares? The only point that was brought up was a ~10 point mcat boost - no more, no less. Seeing how the difference in avg mcat between asians and african americans is 5.7 and a GPA of 0.33, 10 points is a reasonable estimate. He is right. "Small boost" my ass. He never claims that's the ONLY difference between URM and ORM applicants but the fact remains that this ridiculous boost of almost 10 mcat points exists.

Source: Table 19 in AAMC
Click to expand...
It is not a "boost." Are there differences in scores, yes. Anyone with reading comprehension can see that.
However, to call it a boost implies that the scores URMs are accepted with are not adequate for admission to a program. As if medical schools will accept students that they don't think can handle the rigors of medical education. As if being a URM is sufficient by itself to get you a seat, regardless of low MCAT scores.

This is simply not the case.

It has been stated an nauseum on this site that MCAT and GPA are not the whole story. Get it through your head.
 
Cersei_Lannister said:
It is not a "boost." Are there differences in scores, yes. Anyone with reading comprehension can see that.
However, to call it a boost implies that the scores URMs are accepted with are not adequate for admission to a program. As if medical schools will accept students that they don't think can handle the rigors of medical education. As if being a URM is sufficient by itself to get you a seat, regardless of low MCAT scores.
This is simply not the case.

It has been stated an nauseum on this site that MCAT and GPA are not the whole story. Get it through your head.
Click to expand...

I don't care
 
These threads are the most useless crap on SDN. You guys seriously have way too much time on your hands.
 
WhittyPsyche said:
And to bring up gender equality..

Do you see that as immoral?
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of giving individuals an unfair advantage based on something they can't control (i.e. skin color / gender).

There can also be unseen consequences that happen when you start modifying admissions. Look at women for example: half of medical students have been women for a while now. Now, there is a shortage of physicians in large part due to too many women deciding they want to raise a child instead of being a doctor and end up quit working / working part time. Awesome. Great move for society!
 
Cersei_Lannister said:
It is not a "boost." Are there differences in scores, yes. Anyone with reading comprehension can see that.
However, to call it a boost implies that the scores URMs are accepted with are not adequate for admission to a program. As if medical schools will accept students that they don't think can handle the rigors of medical education. As if being a URM is sufficient by itself to get you a seat, regardless of low MCAT scores.
This is simply not the case.

It has been stated an nauseum on this site that MCAT and GPA are not the whole story. Get it through your head.
Click to expand...

There is a large difference between "good enough to complete med school" and a "good enough app to get into med school". It's a function of supply and demand. I haven't seen anyone saying that URM applicants can't complete med school (and as I understand it, completion rates are nearly identical).

What is being stated is that there are drastically different standards for the two most objective academic performance measures.....keeping those two numbers the same and changing nothing but the race of an applicant (from black to hispanic to white to asian) quite literally lowers their odds of matriculating from 75% to 22% (amcas number '10-12). Those are alarming numbers to those who find racial discrimination to be wrong.
 
Womb Raider said:
Now, there is a shortage of physicians in large part due to too many women deciding they want to raise a child instead of being a doctor and end up quit working / working part time.
Click to expand...

I am skeptical. Do you have any data to suggest that "women leaving to make babies" has significantly contributed to a physician shortage?
 
sb247 said:
There is a large difference between "good enough to complete med school" and a "good enough app to get into med school". It's a function of supply and demand. I haven't seen anyone saying that URM applicants can't complete med school (and as I understand it, completion rates are nearly identical).

What is being stated is that there are drastically different standards for the two most objective academic performance measures.....keeping those two numbers the same and changing nothing but the race of an applicant (from black to hispanic to white to asian) quite literally lowers their odds of matriculating from 75% to 22% (amcas number '10-12). Those are alarming numbers to those who find racial discrimination to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something: why, do you think, that black applicants tend to have lower GPA and MCAT than white applicants?
 
Womb Raider said:
I don't like the idea of giving individuals an unfair advantage based on something they can't control (i.e. skin color / gender).

There can also be unseen consequences that happen when you start modifying admissions. Look at women for example: half of medical students have been women for a while now. Now, there is a shortage of physicians in large part due to too many women deciding they want to raise a child instead of being a doctor and end up quit working / working part time. Awesome. Great move for society!
Click to expand...

Ha! Please provide some references to this. Seriously the physician short was caused by women having babies?! Did you think this was something you could just spew out with no proof??
 
jonnythan said:
Let me ask you something: why, do you think, that black applicants tend to have lower GPA and MCAT than white applicants?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the averages of applicants as that's not really relevant to the policy we're discussing. I'm discussing how the averages of matriculants/accepted is evidence of strong racial discrimination in the application system
 
sb247 said:
I haven't looked into the averages of applicants as that's not really relevant to the policy we're discussing. I'm discussing how the averages of matriculants/accepted is evidence of strong racial discrimination in the application system
Click to expand...

You do realize that basically refusing to look at certain aspects of the policy significantly reduces the credibility of your argument, yes?
 
Cersei_Lannister said:
It is not a "boost." Are there differences in scores, yes. Anyone with reading comprehension can see that.
However, to call it a boost implies that the scores URMs are accepted with are not adequate for admission to a program. As if medical schools will accept students that they don't think can handle the rigors of medical education. As if being a URM is sufficient by itself to get you a seat, regardless of low MCAT scores.
This is simply not the case.

It has been stated an nauseum on this site that MCAT and GPA are not the whole story. Get it through your head.
Click to expand...

1- Didn't imply URMs with lower scores are not adequate for admission to a program
2- Didn't imply medical schools will accept student not capable of handling medical school
3- Didn't imply URM by itself is sufficient for a medical school seat
4- No one has claimed MCAT and GPA are the whole story
5- You can infer whatever you want. Not my problem

Like I said. You guys are going bonkers over a simple fact and throwing in emotional attacks on things that haven't been said.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
1- Didn't imply URMs with lower scores are not adequate for admission to a program
2- Didn't imply medical schools will accept student not capable of handling medical school
3- Didn't imply URM by itself is sufficient for a medical school seat
4- No one has claimed MCAT and GPA are the whole story
5- You can infer whatever you want. Not my problem

Like I said. You guys are going bonkers over a simple fact and throwing in emotional attacks on things that haven't been said.
Click to expand...

I thought you were done with this argument.

The data provided does not support the claim that being URM provides a 10-point boost. Period, end of story. The more you argue this point the more you expose your lack of understanding of the issue.
 
jonnythan said:
You do realize that basically refusing to look at certain aspects of the policy significantly reduces the credibility of your argument, yes?
Click to expand...
I haven't refused anything...I'm a policy nerd and would be more than willing to read your information if you find it relevant
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
1- Didn't imply URMs with lower scores are not adequate for admission to a program
2- Didn't imply medical schools will accept student not capable of handling medical school
3- Didn't imply URM by itself is sufficient for a medical school seat
4- No one has claimed MCAT and GPA are the whole story
5- You can infer whatever you want. Not my problem

Like I said. You guys are going bonkers over a simple fact and throwing in emotional attacks on things that haven't been said.
Click to expand...

I share other's frustration with your position.
What you seem to keep implying is that URM MCAT + 10 = Admissions MCAT Score. This just NOT the case. It's not like my classmate who got a 29 becomes a 39 in the eyes of admissions, it's that he has a 29 and fits the needs of the AAMC and medical school in addressing a physician shortage for some specific population along with the other merits on his application.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
1- Didn't imply URMs with lower scores are not adequate for admission to a program
2- Didn't imply medical schools will accept student not capable of handling medical school
3- Didn't imply URM by itself is sufficient for a medical school seat
4- No one has claimed MCAT and GPA are the whole story
5- You can infer whatever you want. Not my problem

Like I said. You guys are going bonkers over a simple fact and throwing in emotional attacks on things that haven't been said.
Click to expand...
"2- Yes life is full of flaws and it is especially amazing when it tilts in your favor. No biggie, you can hide behind the reasoning that giving yourself a boost in admissions is good for society."

Speaking of implications, what were you implying here?
 
Cyberdyne 101 said:
"2- Yes life is full of flaws and it is especially amazing when it tilts in your favor. No biggie, you can hide behind the reasoning that giving yourself a boost in admissions is good for society."

Speaking of implications, what were you implying here?
Click to expand...

That you're URM? I thought that was public knowledge
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
That you're URM? I thought that was public knowledge
Click to expand...

Wait, so it's a personal attack to say someone is against a policy because they weren't accepted/ have lesser chances or what have you.

But... It isn't personal attacks/ presumptuous when you say people only support it because they have a better chance of being accepted due to said policy?

Interesting...
 
sb247 said:
thanks... it shows what you were saying, the average stats of applicants is definitely different by race. You also appeared to be leading toward a "therefore" statement...am I reading you correctly?
Click to expand...

Sort of, but I'm not trying to lead you into a trap or anything. I'm just trying to get you to think critically about the reasons these URMs tend to have lower stats, and then what potential solutions for this disparity are. Then we could examine those potential solutions for things like evidence that they would work better than whatever is being done now, how long they would take, potential pitfalls of these solutions, etc.
 
jonnythan said:
Sort of, but I'm not trying to lead you into a trap or anything. I'm just trying to get you to think critically about the reasons these URMs tend to have lower stats, and then what potential solutions for this disparity are. Then we could examine those potential solutions for things like evidence that they would work better than whatever is being done now, how long they would take, potential pitfalls of these solutions, etc.
Click to expand...

I apologize if it appeared I was expecting a trap, I was just saying it seemed like there was more coming than admitting the stats are lower.

I think one of the better solutions that exists at the moment would be full voucher programs for public education. If you don't like your kid's school, you can take the education money earmarked for them and go shop for a private school. One of the major problems is that demographically speaking a young black student in America is more likely to grow up in a bad school district/zone. But those students are trapped there by a combination of the public schools and their lack of income to escape to a better school. My state has limited programs like that set up and I know a few families that have been very happy with the results for their children.
 
sb247 said:
I apologize if it appeared I was expecting a trap, I was just saying it seemed like there was more coming than admitting the stats are lower.

I think one of the better solutions that exists at the moment would be full voucher programs for public education. If you don't like your kid's school, you can take the education money earmarked for them and go shop for a private school. One of the major problems is that demographically speaking a young black student in America is more likely to grow up in a bad school district/zone. But those students are trapped there by a combination of the public schools and their lack of income to escape to a better school. My state has limited programs like that set up and I know a few families that have been very happy with the results for their children.
Click to expand...

It's one of the reasons, but not the only reason. Lack of parental involvement, lack of parent education, increased demands at home in terms of raising siblings, etc, all affect black kid educational achievement at a much higher rate than white kids. And a voucher to a better school does no good if the student has no ability to obtain transport to and from that school; the school three blocks away is right there, after all, and that voucher school might be five miles away.

So, a voucher program can be helpful to some limited extent for some people, but it's not a cure-all. And it's obviously something that some jurisdictions are trying out. It's one of many, many things that school districts across the country are trying out. But even if those eventually work to shrink the gap a bit, we're looking at 1-2 decades before the effects start being felt at the medical school admission level when you factor in how long it takes kids to actually go through school and then college.

So even assuming that the voucher plan has a significant effect, what about the vast representation gap in medicine for the intervening 15-20 years?
 
jonnythan said:
It's one of the reasons, but not the only reason. Lack of parental involvement, lack of parent education, increased demands at home in terms of raising siblings, etc, all affect black kid educational achievement at a much higher rate than white kids. And a voucher to a better school does no good if the student has no ability to obtain transport to and from that school; the school three blocks away is right there, after all, and that voucher school might be five miles away.

So, a voucher program can be helpful to some limited extent for some people, but it's not a cure-all. And it's obviously something that some jurisdictions are trying out. It's one of many, many things that school districts across the country are trying out. But even if those eventually work to shrink the gap a bit, we're looking at 1-2 decades before the effects start being felt at the medical school admission level when you factor in how long it takes kids to actually go through school and then college.

So even assuming that the voucher plan has a significant effect, what about the vast representation gap in medicine for the intervening 15-20 years?
Click to expand...

Well you can keep the current model of admissions until then? You don't have to scrap one to have the other one. Like wait until the new people go through schooling and then reassess to see if getting rid of race-dependent admissions is viable
 
jonnythan said:
It's one of the reasons, but not the only reason. Lack of parental involvement, lack of parent education, increased demands at home in terms of raising siblings, etc, all affect black kid educational achievement at a much higher rate than white kids. And a voucher to a better school does no good if the student has no ability to obtain transport to and from that school; the school three blocks away is right there, after all, and that voucher school might be five miles away.

So, a voucher program can be helpful to some limited extent for some people, but it's not a cure-all. And it's obviously something that some jurisdictions are trying out. It's one of many, many things that school districts across the country are trying out. But even if those eventually work to shrink the gap a bit, we're looking at 1-2 decades before the effects start being felt at the medical school admission level when you factor in how long it takes kids to actually go through school and then college.

So even assuming that the voucher plan has a significant effect, what about the vast representation gap in medicine for the intervening 15-20 years?[/QUOTE
Much of what you indicated in the 1st paragraph is relevant to my background. It's definitely a multi-faceted struggle for many of us. And thanks for pointing this out!
On the other hand, I know some ORM's with similar stories that had successful application cycles.
Click to expand...

Whoops I lost my response. Anyway thanks for pointing this out.
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Well you can keep the current model of admissions until then? You don't have to scrap one to have the other one. Like wait until the new people go through schooling and then reassess to see if getting rid of race-dependent admissions is viable
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that's a good plan. Indeed, it's exactly what the AAMC says about its URM admissions suggestions: that the policy is intended to boost the admission rates of those minorities who are currently underrepresented, and that this can and will change over time.
 
sb247 said:
I apologize if it appeared I was expecting a trap, I was just saying it seemed like there was more coming than admitting the stats are lower.

I think one of the better solutions that exists at the moment would be full voucher programs for public education. If you don't like your kid's school, you can take the education money earmarked for them and go shop for a private school. One of the major problems is that demographically speaking a young black student in America is more likely to grow up in a bad school district/zone. But those students are trapped there by a combination of the public schools and their lack of income to escape to a better school. My state has limited programs like that set up and I know a few families that have been very happy with the results for their children.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the change in the educational system. The point being that changing the educational system is a large scale political affair that will not be attainable in the immediate future. There is a lot of work going on to this already (and had been for some time). Medical school admissions is trying to do their best to address the healthcare disparities in the short term. After all we can't tell people to stop getting sick or dying until we can fix the educational system that will help address their concerns several decades down the road. And since the scores required to be successful meet the threshold this is a logical and acceptable solution to increase physician training. I don't think anyone has yet provided immediate solutions to that specific goal- physician training.

And I think Womb Raider's dismissal of this need because the people with the most trust issues are dying it will die soon is completely insensitive: most geriatric care are in cases where those patients are dying or may die soon anyway. So does that mean we shouldn't care about their needs? Should we also pass that to the terminal ill?

These policies aren't set in stone to continue for an indefinite amount of time. It is set to address a specific issue in the present. And as demographics change so will the policies as someone had pointed out many times. We have a growing immigrant population for example and an urgent need for care from doctors that share language and culture with these patients to increase the effectiveness of treatment and encourage them to take better care of themselves. When numbers become proportionate then there is no need to specifically seek anyone of a certain background. And as I said before when minority numbers in professional schools increase the subsequent education and elevation of their children, their extended family, and their communities also raise significantly. Which have the amazing long term effects of providing better educational opportunities for members of current URM communities and you will see the gap between GPAs and MCAT scores begin to close.
 
jonnythan said:
So even assuming that the voucher plan has a significant effect, what about the vast representation gap in medicine for the intervening 15-20 years?
Click to expand...

I don't think a representation gap is a problem, there is no moral imperative to match the demographics of a field to the population.
 
sb247 said:
I don't think a representation gap is a problem
Click to expand...

Oh.

I can only assume that you're not aware of how much the representation gap contributes to disparities in health care and health outcomes. The alternative - that a future physician is indeed aware of the fact that representation gaps contribute significantly to health disparities between races and simply doesn't think that's a problem - is horrific.
 
WhittyPsyche said:
And I think Womb Raider's dismissal of this need because the people with the most trust issues are dying it will die soon is completely insensitive: most geriatric care are in cases where those patients are dying or may die soon anyway. So does that mean we shouldn't care about their needs? Should we also pass that to the terminal ill?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if it's insensitive, but it's the truth. Let's say we keep using this method of selection. BOOM 10 years later all the extra minorities emerge from residencies to treat the patients with trust issues. Wait, where did they all go? Oh that's right, they're almost "extinct" because the events that caused the trust issues happened a lifetime ago. Now what's left are people with trust issues founded on ghost stories from their ancestors, rather than actual fears.

And for everyone who doesn't believe me about the female physicians quitting to have babies, google it and come back to me. I'm about to leave for a while but if I feel like it later tonight I'll try to post some articles...
 
Fabio Lanzoni said:
Well you can keep the current model of admissions until then? You don't have to scrap one to have the other one. Like wait until the new people go through schooling and then reassess to see if getting rid of race-dependent admissions is viable
Click to expand...

This is what many people have been saying repeatedly. It's a solution to current insufficiencies. When you fill a gap, it doesn't remain a gap does it? It's pretty intuitive. Also the demographics change over time so a URM group today is not necessary one 10 years from now. We was a physician population that mirrors the actual population so what that is at a given time that will be the goal of admissions. That goes for race, gender, socioeconomic status, and likely orientation.
 
Womb Raider said:
I'm sorry if it's insensitive, but it's the truth. Let's say we keep using this method of selection. BOOM 10 years later all the extra minorities emerge from residencies to treat the patients with trust issues. Wait, where did they all go? Oh that's right, they're almost "extinct" because the events that caused the trust issues happened a lifetime ago. Now what's left are people with trust issues founded on ghost stories from their ancestors, rather than actual fears.
Click to expand...

"Extra minorities" lol
Also lol that "the events that caused the trust issues happened a lifetime ago"

Come on man.

Womb Raider said:
And for everyone who doesn't believe me about the female physicians quitting to have babies, google it and come back to me. I'm about to leave for a while but if I feel like it later tonight I'll try to post some articles...
Click to expand...

You made the claim. You support it with data.
 
WhittyPsyche said:
This is what many people have been saying repeatedly. It's a solution to current insufficiencies. When you fill a gap, it doesn't remain a gap does it? It's pretty intuitive. Also the demographics change over time so a URM group today is not necessary one 10 years from now. We was a physician population that mirrors the actual population so what that is at a given time that will be the goal of admissions. That goes for race, gender, socioeconomic status, and likely orientation.
Click to expand...

I think you are mis-attributing some other people's posts as mine? You did that in another post earlier too lol. Either way. I never disagreed with the things you're saying here.
 
jonnythan said:
Oh.

I can only assume that you're not aware of how much the representation gap contributes to disparities in health care and health outcomes. The alternative - that a future physician is indeed aware of the fact that representation gaps contribute significantly to health disparities between races and simply doesn't think that's a problem - is horrific.
Click to expand...

Unless you have evidence that an asian doctor physically can't provide good care to a black person or a white doctor can't provide good care to a hispanic patient...then I'm going to stick to my point. A patient "preferring" a doctor of their race is not a justification for unconstitutional racial balancing in admissions. A patient trusting a doctor of their race more is not a justification either (much like it wouldn't be appropriate for a hospital in a rural country area to prefer white doctors because they found some of their patients were as bigoted as those patients that don't like white doctors.
 
sb247 said:
Unless you have evidence that an asian doctor physically can't provide good care to a black person or a white doctor can't provide good care to a hispanic patient...then I'm going to stick to my point. A patient "preferring" a doctor of their race is not a justification for unconstitutional racial balancing in admissions. A patient trusting a doctor of their race more is not a justification either (much like it wouldn't be appropriate for a hospital in a rural country area to prefer white doctors because they found some of their patients were as bigoted as those patients that don't like white doctors.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you boil down disparities in health care and outcomes to whether a given doctor of a given race can provide good care to a given patient of a different race. There's a lot more to public health and health disparities than that.

You keep trying to dramatically oversimplify the idea of public health and minority representation in healthcare. I can only assume you're doing this because you lack the knowledge and education to even see the other parts of the picture. I did graduate work in public health, and, believe me: you don't know what you don't know.

The AAMC and adcoms aren't idiots, and they're not doing this because they just feel so sorry for those poor URMs. They're doing this because it has significant benefits to ultimate patient care and public health in general.
 
Womb Raider said:
I'm sorry if it's insensitive, but it's the truth. Let's say we keep using this method of selection. BOOM 10 years later all the extra minorities emerge from residencies to treat the patients with trust issues. Wait, where did they all go? Oh that's right, they're almost "extinct" because the events that caused the trust issues happened a lifetime ago. Now what's left are people with trust issues founded on ghost stories from their ancestors, rather than actual fears.

And for everyone who doesn't believe me about the female physicians quitting to have babies, google it and come back to me. I'm about to leave for a while but if I feel like it later tonight I'll try to post some articles...
Click to expand...

The health outcomes improve significantly for minorities who have trust and comfort ability. Whether that's because of sharing the same language or same culture not just because of ghost stories. Sorry that you can't seem to get past one single contributing factor.

I'll wait for you to come back with the scholarly articles and peer reviewed research that women having children have caused the physician shortage.
 
jonnythan said:
I'm not sure how you boil down disparities in health care and outcomes to whether a given doctor of a given race can provide good care to a given patient of a different race. There's a lot more to public health and health disparities than that.

You keep trying to dramatically oversimplify the idea of public health and minority representation in healthcare. I can only assume you're doing this because you lack the knowledge and education to even see the other parts of the picture. I did graduate work in public health, and, believe me: you don't know what you don't know.
Click to expand...

then please spell it out...
 
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
277
jffyx _net
jffyx _net
H
  • Question Question
Question to ADCOMs: Primary typo, how bad?
Replies
10
Views
789
Hollow Knight
Hollow Knight
Top