URM: MSTP vs MD Only

[JayQuah]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Even though MSTP programs are more competitive than thier MD only counterparts, has anyone heard of the theory that it might be easier for URMs to gain admission to MSTP programs rather than MD only because of the big push for MSTP programs to increase diversity and decrease regionality?

 

[jjmack]

I'm sure statistically the accept rates are higher...much like for MSTP vs. MD only over all. I don't know if anyone knows for sure it's "easier." It very well maybe though.

 

[Maebea]

The following data was presented at the National MD-PhD Meeting in Colorado by the administrator from WashU. Data was collected from 23 MSTP schools and 17 nonMSTP schools. The data was for the period 1998-2001. The following table shows the percentage of minorities in each group. For MSTP schools, minorities represented 8.6% of the applicant pool, 9.7% of those interviewed, 11.3% of those offered acceptances, and 9.6% of those enrolled.

Applied/Interviewed/Accepted/Enrolled
MSTP 8.6%/9.7%/11.3%/9.6%
NonMSTP 12%/10.9%/11.2%/8.4%
Combined 9.2%/9.9%/11.2%/9.3%

These data suggest that for MSTP institutions, minorities are over-represented in the interviewed, accepted and enrolled counts, relative to their overall number in the applicant pool. In non-MSTP institutions, the opposite is true. The presenter did not collect data to try to explain why minority representation differed. It could be that the minority applicants were stronger than the non-minoirty applicants, so they were interviewed and offered admission more frequently. Another explanation might be that NIH mandates to increase minority representation in MSTP programs influences admissions decisions.

I realize that this information does not address your question of whether there is a difference between MD and MD-PhD programs it terms of minority admissions. Based on my experience, I suspect that data on MD admissions would be substantially similar.

 

[JayQuah]

thanks for both of your insights

 

[1Path]

Another explanation might be that NIH mandates to increase minority representation in MSTP programs influences admissions decisions. .

I was at the NIH for 3 years and never saw/heard of anything about the NIH making "mandates" about minority representation. What I can tell you they mandate is that ALL matriculants into MSTP funded programs be competitive or the school risks loosing it's MSTP designation.

I also know from personal experience that non-MSTP schools are under enourmous pressure to admit URM's with competitive stats or risk not being able to get an MSTP designation by the NIH. This is the main reason I think it's harder for URM's to matriculate at nonMSTP schools than MSTP schools.

 

[milliardo_L]

I also know from personal experience that non-MSTP schools are under enourmous pressure to admit URM's with competitive stats or risk not being able to get an MSTP designation by the NIH. This is the main reason I think it's harder for URM's to matriculate at nonMSTP schools than MSTP schools.

I don't understand the logic of this, wouldn't it be easier to get in? 😕

There might be some self-selecting in the process, perhaps more so than for non URM. Having said that, I think programs aim to have a rich and diverse class, so my naive idea is that between two more or less equally good applicants they would favor an URM.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Hi,

I am a bit puzzled by this question about the degree to which under-represented minorities gain better chances of acceptance to MSTP vs. MD? What are the underlying reasons for asking this question? Does anyone here read the NIH requirements for T32 institutional grants handed out by the NIGMS? The process if rigorous, and despite the fact that the NIH (a goverment funded institution) want to diversify the future workforce, only a very small percentage of URM applicants and matriculants attain these very prestigious awards. I don't want to jump to any conclusions yet so I'll wait for a response. So if possible, I would like a clarification for the reasons this questions was posted. At that time we could continue this dialogue. Thanks!

 

[milliardo_L]

This is something very important to talk about. Hopefully it will not become an almost flaming thread... 😱

 

[Napoleon4000]

Hello Again,

I agree. I just hope that it isn't what I think it is. This process is very challenging for anyone going through it. And most likely, but not always, people who decide to take this path have thought long and hard about why one should do it; if one is qualified; and if one feels up to the challenge. And yes, you are absolutely correct...this thread has the potential to be quite explosive. The AAMC and the NIH, and probably other institituions that I known nothing about, have described in detail the need for diversity; the need for medically oriented researchers; the serious problems our health care system is suffering and will suffer; and the potential crises in the future because of the dearth in medical professionals of all backgrounds in the US. I have "somewhat" of a Budhist perspective on things so I await a response to my question regarding URMs and MSTP. It is an unfortunate fact that out of the many people who apply, some very well qualified, and some not, do not gain admission. This process is highly subjective because human beings perform the selection process. It is like a competetive game of college football. Even though both teams may be the best there can be only one champion. In this case, even though everyone (in most instances) may be extremely well qualified, whether by experience, demeanor or academic preparation, in the end, an admissions committee select whome they "feel" should be awarded a spot for acceptance. And as in life, things are not always fair, nor is a desired outcome achieved. One can only try, and to the best of their ability, to present themselves, almost naked, for judgement. Again, this thread could go in several directions, but I hope it will be most of all, at least for me, educational.

 

[1Path]

I don't understand the logic of this, wouldn't it be easier to get in? 😕 .

Short answer, depends on whether or not the school has MSTP designation or not. I think an MSTP is more likely to take a "chance" on an applicant with a lower MCAT/GPA than a non MSTP school from what I've observed.

In this case, even though everyone (in most instances) may be extremely well qualified, whether by experience, demeanor or academic preparation, in the end, an admissions committee select whome they "feel" should be awarded a spot for acceptance.
2 questions. What is "well qualified" and what do you mean by "feel". As you mentioned, both of these statements are VERY subjective. About "feelings" people tend to admit people they have something in common with and this fact has inmplications for everything from school to jobs to selectng the next Miss America.

What is well qualified? I think the least telling predictor of success among all the URM MD/PhD's, MD's, and PhD I know personally are test scores. Although some adcoms may agree, there's still pressure to admit those students with solid MCAT performance to keep up the "apperance" of a rigorous admission standard. So to me, this idea that URM's are matiruclating with MCAT's far below other students is just laughable. I've seen a few lists (both MSTP and nonMSTP) of matriuclants to a few programs and looking at the numbers, I can't tell who is minority and who is not.

 

[1Path]

There might be some self-selecting in the process, perhaps more so than for non URM. Having said that, I think programs aim to have a rich and diverse class, so my naive idea is that between two more or less equally good applicants they would favor an URM.

Here's what I didn't know until recently. At a lot of schools, non URM's are not competing against URM's at all so the scenario you describe, bewteen a qualified URM and nonURM, would almost NEVER happen. You're competing against other people JUST LIKE YOU. Applications are divided up by race/ethinicity which is how schools get diversity in their classes. The best among each race/ethnicity are the folks who are admitted. So if your name is Molly and you weren't admitted, it wasn't because of Shanequa. It was because of Emily.

 

[1Path]

Even though MSTP programs are more competitive than thier MD only counterparts, has anyone heard of the theory that it might be easier for URMs to gain admission to MSTP programs rather than MD only because of the big push for MSTP programs to increase diversity and decrease regionality?

Now to address the question, I think it's easier for ANY applicant to go MD/PhD (and some students used MD/PhD as a "backdoor" into med school) simply because you're competing against a smaller pool of applicants. The only "advantage" I could see a URM having is that at many schools, there are only 3 or 4 URM MD/PhD applicants so statistically speaking, you'll have a "better" shot. However, there are plenty of MD/PhD classes that go for years without matriculating a single URM student.

 

[ChyLn]

Here's what I didn't know until recently. At a lot of schools, non URM's are not competing against URM's at all so the scenario you describe, bewteen a qualified URM and nonURM, would almost NEVER happen. You're competing against other people JUST LIKE YOU. Applications are divided up by race/ethinicity which is how schools get diversity in their classes. The best among each race/ethnicity are the folks who are admitted. So if your name is Molly and you weren't admitted, it wasn't because of Shanequa. It was because of Emily.

I'm not sure if this is true... however, even if it is, I don't see it occuring in MSTP programs. For a MD class of over a hundred students a year, I can see that. MST programs are simply too small. Each school admits, what, approximately 10 or 12 students a year? And to divide that equally between race/ethnicity? Unlikely.

In general, I can't say that it's easier or harder to apply MD or MD/PhD as the ideal applicant for each is very different.

 

[ChyLn]

Now to address the question, I think it's easier for ANY applicant to go MD/PhD (and some students used MD/PhD as a "backdoor" into med school) simply because you're competing against a smaller pool of applicants. The only "advantage" I could see a URM having is that at many schools, there are only 3 or 4 URM MD/PhD applicants so statistically speaking, you'll have a "better" shot. However, there are plenty of MD/PhD classes that go for years without matriculating a single URM student.

To further address this, I've been asking around and it seems that the proportion of admittees from the applicants for MSTP and MD programs are very similar. About 10-fold fewer ppl apply to MD/PhD programs (~500 vs ~5000) and likewise the class size for MD/Phd programs are about a tenth the size of common MD classes (10-12 vs 100-150ish). To me, statistically, the success rate for MD/Phd and MD's are very similar and so neither is harder or easier. To re-iterate my previous point, its the ideal applicant that is different.

 

[1Path]

Each school admits, what, approximately 10 or 12 students a year?

And of that, how many are URM, maybe 1 3 if the program is lucky?? Some programs end up with 5 or more and most of these aren't MSTP.

And to divide that equally between race/ethnicity? Unlikely

I'm not sure what you're referring to here with the comment about dividing things equally by race since that isn't my position.

 

[Napoleon4000]

Hello Again,

Chyln, it sounds to me like you've had some good experiences. 1path, it sounds to me like you have not had some good experiences. Well, this will be my last comment. Although I didn't get a response from the original composer of the question these replies will do. 1path have you ever spoken directly to an admissions committee person about how they choose a candidate? I think that their decision is not easy. I never have. So I won't. However, I've visited quite a few programs and seen the diversity of those classes. Sometimes, there is a lot of diversity in terms of country of origin or ethnicity; sometimes there is a lot of diversity in terms of experiences. This whole processs if a crap shoot. If you are lucky enough to get a spot, that is great. So begins a long journey to a desired goal. And I'll tell you from my own experience, that it will likely be tough: grant writing (which is not easy), juggling my own relationship with my wife (also a scientist in training), and finally deciding which specialty to focus on and to do some translational work...hopefully. Oh, and living in a very expensive area with minimal pay. These things are all challenges. All the indivials that I've spoken to, including those in my own class, are very smart. Regardless of their background, on merit alone, the individuals in the program are rather good scientists with really good backgrounds in basic research. So, 1path, I won't minimize your experiences, because at one point I was in your shoes. Experience is subjective. We see our own truth and write our own story. We are the authors of our story. I hope that as this process continues that things work out for you. Science, medicine, and research are all human endeavors. Thus, by that mere fact, their practice is enveloped by human subjectivity and experience. I think though that most people who practice, try to be objective, but know that at times they cannot be. And I can say with certainty, that the individuals, at least in my class, love research, so the committee in this school made good choices. Finally, after speaking with one faculty member here, he told me a story about being a baseball player. He describe this thing called "fire in the belly." Something that he himself said was very difficult to judge. It is that something more that cannot be quantified by numbers or experience alone, it is something that may be brough out in the interview process. This he said, is the time when they can evaluate that something. Committeess, every year, must choose from an excellent applicant pool. It is their right to choose whome they "feel" is qualified. Now this "feeling" I cannot say what it is because I know that it is not based on numbers alone: level of experience matters, publication record prior to interview, letters of recommendation (these REALLY matter), degree of commitment to a career in research and other personal attributes which are seen during the interview process. Yes, here is where the subjectivity of feeling comes in. And this I know first hand from faculty who are directors of at least my program, they pick candidates by what others say about them, their academic record and background, but most of all, especially after the interview, HOW WELL WILL I GET ALONG WITH THIS INVIDIVUAL FOR 7 TO 8 YEARS? IS THIS SOMEONE I CAN WORK WITH FOR THAT LENGTH OF TIME? DOES THIS PERSON HAVE A SIMILAR TEMPERMENT? So this is what I mean by feeling. Once you finish your first two years, you will have to decide which lab to rotate in, and pick which one fits you better to do your PhD. Committees make this process easier by selecting individuals who have the personality to match their program. Now this may not be true in every case or every program. But I'm sure this is why so many are successful. They pick "well qualified" based on their own numerical criteria. I won't hazzard to guess what they are. And in addition they pick those people whom they think will not be trouble, in terms of personality, with the program. This process does have the potential to make some people bitter. And with good reason. I hope that everyone's effort pushes you to the limit and gets you good outcomes. Thanks for your time. And I wish everyone luck.

 

[ChyLn]

"At a lot of schools, non URM's are not competing against URM's at all so the scenario you describe, bewteen a qualified URM and nonURM, would almost NEVER happen."

"Applications are divided up by race/ethinicity which is how schools get diversity in their classes. The best among each race/ethnicity are the folks who are admitted. So if your name is Molly and you weren't admitted, it wasn't because of Shanequa. It was because of Emily."

That's what I was responding to. Put simply, I don't think this happens in real life at MSTP programs. Also, I don't think you can judge the quality of a program based on the number of URMS that are in it, so you can't say that a program is 'lucky' to have 1-3 URMS out of 12 ppl. In truth, I feel that by making such a sharp distinction between URMs and non-URMs we are really exacerbating the situation.

 

[1Path]

1path, it sounds to me like you have not had some good experiences. .

Actually, I've had some great experiences. I was accepted MD/PhD many years ago and decided not to matriculate for personal reasons. NIH publications, recrutiment by many top schools, happy family life. It's all good! 😉 What I don't do is sugarcoat what I've been told or my opinions so perhaps that's the "negative" you were reposnding to.

1path have you ever spoken directly to an admissions committee person about how they choose a candidate? .

As a seasoned scientist, I rely on evidence before drawing any conclusions. So yes, you can safely conclude that after having completed a thesis with the assoicate director of an MD/PhD program, recently intervied for a lab gig with another, in addition to the many emails and phone calls with both directors or MSTP and non MSTP MD/PhD programs from the Ivy League on "down", not to mention long term NIH contacts, that I feel pretty confident about the info I was given.

 

[1Path]

Also, I don't think you can judge the quality of a program based on the number of URMS that are in it, so you can't say that a program is 'lucky' to have 1-3 URMS out of 12 ppl. In truth, I feel that by making such a sharp distinction between URMs and non-URMs we are really exacerbating the situation.

I haven't made ANY comments about the "quality" in my posts. I think what happens is that when people see URM in a post, the hidden message is that this is an AA debate so to some talking about "quality" seems like the next best step. Since you brought the issue up, do YOU think there's a relationship between the number of URM students and the "quality" of a program? I certainly don't.

You know, personally I could care less about rankings or quality of MSTP or non MSTP programs. What I DO care about is who I complete my PhD with since THAT is the rate limiting step in the MD/PhD process and if I'm lucky, I'll know exactly who that will likely be in the next few weeks. 🙂

 

[ChyLn]

"Since you brought the issue up, do YOU think there's a relationship between the number of URM students and the "quality" of a program? I certainly don't."

I don't. In fact, I don't think that there really should be a division between URMs and non-URMs as such a distinction in itself feels pretty arbritrary to me.

I based my response on the one statement you made a couple of posts up:

"And of that, how many are URM, maybe 1 3 if the program is <b>lucky</b>?? Some programs end up with 5 or more and most of these aren't MSTP."

It seemed like to me, that a 'lucky' program would be better than an 'unlucky' one and, seemed as least to me, an attempt to correlate the number of URMs with the quality of a program.

That is all.

 

[JayQuah]

I did not mean to turn this into a debate. Selfishly, I was talking about my own experience...admissions officers that I have talked to have alluded to the fact that while MD programs are def. trying to increase diversity, MSTP programs are under outside pressure to do it. Hypothetically, lets say I am interviewing for MSTP at a top notch school. I have a fair chance of getting in...but lets say I don't. My app then moves down to the M.D. only pool...and now, the URM status means even less because, while I am sufficiently qualified, it doesn't mean as much to the admissions committee.
Also: MSTP doesn't care where you're from. If this hypothetical school is a state school, then the fact that I am from CO is going to turn them off even more.
Sorry that I took so long to clarify, Napolean.

 

[SeventhSon]

Also: MSTP doesn't care where you're from. If this hypothetical school is a state school, then the fact that I am from CO is going to turn them off even more.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, jay. The more I have talked to people in research the more I get the message that, especially as you move further along in your career, WHO you have done research under becomes incredibly important. After admission to graduate school, in fact, it becomes 10x more important than what such a letter says. Letters of Rec from established contributors to a field of research mean far more than a similarly-lauding letter from a less-established professor at a state school; it is much more comforting for a committee to see that someone with "something to lose", or at least something to look foolish about, would go about writing an overzealous letter of rec.

It also shows that people displayed excellence over a longer period of time. I mean UCSD was a solid institution but I didn't go to a stanford, etc. because I didn't stand out in HS to the extent that I did in college. If someone with the same application as me came from a more prestigous institution, it can also be taken to mean that that student has exhibited excellence for a longer period of time.

That may not seem fair but demonstratively, think of it also as someone who has a 3.7 vs. a 3.9, where the 3.7 person got straight A's for their last 2 years in college. Yeah, at a snapshot in time maybe that candidate may have "evolved" into a better student and one equivalently knowledgeable but any committee will still take the student that has always displayed excellence.

It comes down as well to the same bottom line associated with why the preference for elite undergraduate institutions for regular MD as well. Students who prove that they can "hang" with the best of the best is a sure thing, whereas a super-standout at a lesser-known school can be seen as a risk because it is uncertain how intense the coursework is and who are the peers of that student. The saying that, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, is very much a consideration in the huge investment that goes into MSTP admissions decisions. 7/8 years is a long time, and consistency means as much as anything else.

[edit] i may have mistaken your comment, its unclear to me whether "where you're from" means geographically or undergrad, but i typed a crapload so i might as well leave it up

 

[Napoleon4000]

Hi JQ,

Thanks for the reply. In retrospect, I made a mistake and misunderstood your message. What you ask makes sense. Frankly, I'm just tired hearing, not in your case, bitter remarks made by others. Being a URM means living under a double standard. On the one hand they need us to become doctors (physician-scientist) to add diversity to the work force, but on the other hand we are branded as "underqualified or prepared." This whole process, in my experience is rather arbitrary and has more subjectivity than it claims not to have. I know you know this, but just think, if all schools were looking for was GPA and mcat, then average would look like 40/4.0. I've learned my lesson. I see you have interviewed at some very good schools. I hope that you get to attend your institution of choice. Thank you once more for your reply.

 

[1Path]

Also: MSTP doesn't care where you're from. If this hypothetical school is a state school, then the fact that I am from CO is going to turn them off even more.

Based on my expereinces, I'll have to agree with this statement. The state school thing can be especially difficult if you've spent more time in research and less time in actual clinical settings. I was grilled to death recently for not having any relevant recent clinical experience by a state school with a strong primary care component.

All of these factors I think support my contention that MD/PhD and especially MSTP MD/PhD, isn't all that much "easier" for URM students than for anyone else.

 

[1Path]

Being a URM means living under a double standard.

Here's the thing I think most younger URM's seem to ALWAYS forget. Yours is NOT the first generation to be labelled as "underqualified or underprepared". This has been the case throughout American History for people of color. What I've learned is that when you surround yourself with people commmitted to excellence and you are excellent, the color of your skin rarely matters a lesson I learned during my tenure at the NIH and at Chapel Hill (Go Heels!).

Frankly, I'm just tired hearing, not in your case, bitter remarks made by others. .

Now, I believe that where "bitterness" is concerned, there are 2 schools of thought. The "woe is me, the "man" has his foot up my arse constantly" , and the "Life has given me lemons (a VERY bitter fruit, I might add) so lets make lemonade". Ultimately, which side of the track you fall on is directly related to your ACTIONS. So for me, through divorce, terminal illness/death of one parent, serious brain injury of the other, depression, grad school as a divorced parent, temporary unemployment, the big pharma job from hell, and 5 MCAT's, I'm undeterred and living la vida loca!.

So if I'm the poster child for bitterness, then perhaps bitter is not a bad place for ALL of us to be. 😉

 

[solitude]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, jay. The more I have talked to people in research the more I get the message that, especially as you move further along in your career, WHO you have done research under becomes incredibly important. After admission to graduate school, in fact, it becomes 10x more important than what such a letter says. Letters of Rec from established contributors to a field of research mean far more than a similarly-lauding letter from a less-established professor at a state school; it is much more comforting for a committee to see that someone with "something to lose", or at least something to look foolish about, would go about writing an overzealous letter of rec.

It also shows that people displayed excellence over a longer period of time. I mean UCSD was a solid institution but I didn't go to a stanford, etc. because I didn't stand out in HS to the extent that I did in college. If someone with the same application as me came from a more prestigous institution, it can also be taken to mean that that student has exhibited excellence for a longer period of time.

That may not seem fair but demonstratively, think of it also as someone who has a 3.7 vs. a 3.9, where the 3.7 person got straight A's for their last 2 years in college. Yeah, at a snapshot in time maybe that candidate may have "evolved" into a better student and one equivalently knowledgeable but any committee will still take the student that has always displayed excellence.

It comes down as well to the same bottom line associated with why the preference for elite undergraduate institutions for regular MD as well. Students who prove that they can "hang" with the best of the best is a sure thing, whereas a super-standout at a lesser-known school can be seen as a risk because it is uncertain how intense the coursework is and who are the peers of that student. The saying that, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, is very much a consideration in the huge investment that goes into MSTP admissions decisions. 7/8 years is a long time, and consistency means as much as anything else.

[edit] i may have mistaken your comment, its unclear to me whether "where you're from" means geographically or undergrad, but i typed a crapload so i might as well leave it up

This is one of the most well-articulated and insightful posts I have seen on SDN in a while. You're doing extremely well with interviews though SeventhSon!

 

[Napoleon4000]

"Here's the thing I think most younger URM's seem to ALWAYS forget."

I'm not young. I'm in the middle of my biomedical training in LA.

"Yours is NOT the first generation to be labelled as "underqualified or underprepared".

I know. You know, you are very condenscending.

"the color of your skin rarely matters a lesson I learned during my tenure at the NIH and at Chapel Hill (Go Heels!)."

I was also a member of the NIH Academy in Bethesda (I consider myself privileged). But during my time there I realized that there is not much diversity on the campus with respect to latino scientists. Two or three tenured at most of whome I've meet two: Dr. Garcia-Perez and Dr. Juan Rivera. The NIH also has mandate for NRSAs and NIGMS to recruit URM's, women and children as both patients and outstanding students, who will participate in clinical trials and in biomedical training. So the NIH recognizes the problem. So does the rest of the federal government.

Just so you know I'm not whining, but I do see a social problem. Here in LA there is a lot of diversity, but the faculty is not diverse and there are not a lot of tenure women faculty. These are social problems. But I hope that the demographics change with time, not the level of excellence.

My suggestion, which I hope to be a part of, is to begin programs to train teachers from early on, like kindergarten, to not be biased, and to bring out the best in children from the outset.


"So for me, through divorce, terminal illness/death of one parent, serious brain injury of the other, depression, grad school as a divorced parent, temporary unemployment, the big pharma job from hell, and 5 MCAT's, I'm undeterred and living la vida loca!. "

I'm not making attacks on your character, but you seem to be taking things somewhat personally. Your resentment makes you potentially dangerous. If you will have to relate to patients in the future, I hope that you will demonstrate more compassion. We all have insecurities. Again, now I will say this makes you dangerous. Having a chip on your shoulder can breed a lot problems. I hope I am wrong. I've seen your post in other forums. It's almost as if you get pleasure out of attacking others. I hope I am wrong.

"So if I'm the poster child for bitterness, then perhaps bitter is not a bad place for ALL of us to be."

Just be careful. Overcoming challenges and getting opportunities is both wonderful and a great responsibility. Take good care and I look forward to your response, as next response will be my last for quite sometime.

 

[1Path]

I was also a member of the NIH Academy in Bethesda (I consider myself privileged). The NIH also has mandate for NRSAs and NIGMS to recruit URM's, women and children as both patients and outstanding students, who will participate in clinical trials and in biomedical training. So the NIH recognizes the problem. So does the rest of the federal government..

I agree wholeheartedly. These's definitely a need to more URM scientists, doctors, and Physician-Scientists everywhere not just NIH and LA. However, a mandate doesn't and hasn't translated necessarily into increased numebers of URM students.

My suggestion, which I hope to be a part of, is to begin programs to train teachers from early on, like kindergarten, to not be biased, and to bring out the best in children from the outset..

I have a child in the public school system and I can tell you that because of preconceived notions about the ability of URM children, no matter how many programs you put in place, not much is going to change. This is the sole repsonsibility of URM parents and URM communities to DEMAND AP courses for our high schools students, gifted curriculims for our grade school aged children for example. And if the system won't give to us, then WE have to provide our own opprotunities. For example, many of the chinese children my children go to school with also participate in what's called "Chinese school" on the weekends and they didn't wait for the system to put it in place for them. URM's need to do the same thing. Training Physician-Scientists of color doesn't begin in college or high school. It starts in grammer school.

Now about your personal assemment of my personality and/or character. While I am woman enough to apologize when I have offended people and have done so on SDN when necessary, I make absolutely NO apologies for who and what I am. Call me bitter, resentful, insecure, dangerous, ugly, stinkin, and in need of better deodorant protection, it doesn't in any way affect who I am, what I see is my God given purpose in life and the things I need to do to get the job done. One persons "hurtful comment" is anothers "helpful revelation". And the world is a much better place because we are all different.

Now I like to wish you the absolute best in your academic endeavors as well!!!

 

[Napoleon4000]

Madam,

I would just call you a typical New Yorker (Compliment!) as I am one too. Your child is very lucky to have someone as determine as you. If I offended you I apologize. Funny, we have similar backgrounds, but different points of view. Go figure. This is what will make the world (and biomedical research) better. With that, I must return to my studies. Good luck and I hope your dreams come true. 👍

This has been a very interesting and insightful forum. A lot of really bright and ambitious people!

 

[1Path]

Madam,

I would just call you a typical New Yorker (Compliment!) as I am one too. Your child is very lucky to have someone as determine as you. If I offended you I apologize. Funny, we have similar backgrounds, but different points of view. Go figure. This is what will make the world (and biomedical research) better. With that, I must return to my studies. Good luck and I hope your dreams come true. 👍

This has been a very interesting and insightful forum. A lot of really bright and ambitious people!

Honestly though, I hope you find time in the future to chime in here on SDN in this thread and here:
http://msapas04.proboards28.com/

I also think these types of debates are VERY important for ALL of us because we as humans HAVE to face the fact that a health issue for one "group", is a health issue for ALL of us whether we're talking about the AIDS epidemic in Africa or the Bird Flu in Asia.

Oh, I I LOVE New York and New Yorkers!!! 👍

Now I have to get back to cooking Sunday dinner!