URM=unethical?

[UTsksk]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There are a lot of people who have been through tough times and skin color has nothing to do with it. Some people get through it and some people make excuses about it. Admissions committees may grant leniency to people who fail to meet standards of admission, but it is unethical. Who would pass a more qualified candidate for someone who meets a skin color or other "disadvantaged" criteria? It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court stopped short of calling Affirmative Action illegal, but I have no doubt that it is coming soon. It is also unfortunate that many rational persons still think reverse discrimination is acceptable.

I hope you don't assume that I'm disagreeing with you on the subject at hand. I want acceptance to be completely based on personal merit, but unfortunately things are more complex than that. Things will eventually change, but it'll take time. On a side note, I do believe that affirmative action did create a reverse discrimination, heh I even wrote a paper about it in government this summer.

 

[Simplify]

No, I can see that you're in sarcastic agreement.

 

[by604]

The whole point of giving preference to URMs is to facilitate diversity. It is assumed that URMs are at a disadvantage when taking standardized tests which favor white people because of the opportunities they've had that blacks have not. This is true... although income is probably a better predictor than race (for example I am URM, but have had every opportunity in the world)

 

[UTsksk]

haha i think sarcasm is one of the toughest things to figure out on the internet

 

[TNK123]

To be honest, I think applicants with connections, and the residents of Mississippi, Alabama and Illinois have an unfair advantage...I can't help being raised in CA. The number of people getting on account of this seemingly unfair advantage probably equals the number of Black OR Latinos getting in on account of race. Seriously...I'm going to have to convert to Seven Day Adventist to get into school! (I'm praying the AdComm isn't in the SDN forum)

 

[Siggy]

This isn't a troll question... it is controversial however. In general, I agree with the OP. The fact that someone's skin color imparts an inherent advantage in the application seems bizarre. There are several African-Americans, and Mexicans that I have gone through the entire pre-medical curriculum with. Their parents are successful, and so are they. They are not inherently disadvantaged, in fact they are doing quite well in all of their classes. I understand the concept of URM status; however, it seems more applicable to financial status as opposed to skin color. I know plenty of white people who are poor who's families have been in an endless cycle of poorness.

I completely agree with the premise of the OPs post. My trolldar tends to go off, though, when an account's first post is to ask a controversial question like this. Especially questions where the consensus of the board means nothing. Sure, I think it's BS that URMs are given special privilege and that there's a huge stat jump between the "Traditionally Black Colleges" and everyone else. However my first post ever on a forum is probably not going to be tackling that issue.

 

[Siggy]

This brings up a bigger question. Should we adapt our ideals to our society or should we adapt our society to our ideals?

Alternatively, does equal opportunity require equal outcomes?

 

[TopSecret]

To be honest, I think applicants with connections, and the residents of Mississippi, Alabama and Illinois have an unfair advantage...I can't help being raised in CA. The number of people getting on account of this seemingly unfair advantage probably equals the number of Black OR Latinos getting in on account of race. Seriously...I'm going to have to convert to Seven Day Adventist to get into school! (I'm praying the AdComm isn't in the SDN forum)

FYI, California banned affirmative action with Proposition 209.

 

[TopSecret]

Alternatively, does equal opportunity require equal outcomes?

If everyone has equal abilities, which is obviously false.

 

[Siggy]

True. It takes time to build trust, even with cultural competency. Also racial diversity may be advantageous in an educational setting.

See below:
http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/2/322?sp

"Results suggest that benefits associated with diversity may be more far-reaching than previously documented. Not only do students benefit from engaging with racial diversity through related knowledge acquisition or cross-racial interaction but also from being enrolled on a campus where other students are more engaged with those forms of diversity, irrespective of their own level of engagement."

Yea... I benefited so much in school by having deep conversations during my undergrad sciences classes with people of other cultures. Apparently, black, white, and Asian cells all have different ways of functioning. Who knew cell biology was so diverse.

Oh, and I learned to hate mEcHa (or how ever the capitalize that). Then again, I imagine I'd hate MeChA regardless of the college and I was a minority at my undergrad, and yes, I'm white (white/European American/Anglo American/European Mutt/what ever else is the 'correct' term nowadays) (Go UC Irvine. Zot zot zot!).

 

[Siggy]

FYI, California banned affirmative action with Proposition 209.

He might be talking about how insanely hard it is to get into the UCs. What's the point of having state universities if the state universities are harder to get into than a lot of the private schools?

 

[TNK123]

Top secret--

I think there was a miss communication. I meant to say the URM piece is only one piece of the application process. Many people are given advantages for different reasons. Residency preferences don't seem to get attacked on the board, nor do AA policies that have benefited some of our former presidents. I think it would be easier for a White person from Mississippi to get into Medical school than a Latino from Ca, for example, even though a Spanish-Speaking Latino student would be a much more valuable asset to his community. But that's just my opinion.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

A pure Asian friend of mine applied as an URM, successfully, by saying that he's 1/8 hispanic, which isn't true. Funny how something as ridiculous as that can actually make a difference in your application.

 

[Phosphorus Ylide]

He might be talking about how insanely hard it is to get into the UCs. What's the point of having state universities if the state universities are harder to get into than a lot of the private schools?

To make people with only low 30s MCATS and sub 4.0 gpas feel insecure and inferior.

 

[greatnt249]

.

 

[BrokenDisco]

I'm against affirmative action because it implies that people of a particular race are not capable of suceeding. I am Asian and in medical school we're considered a majority. But how did we get there? by working hard and earning our spot. Our parents and some of us are immigrants who are discriminated against by caucasians, african americans and latinos. Many of us are poor and had to bust our butts just to make ends meet so why aren't we considered disadvantaged? I believe that AA should be used on a case by case basis. Race should not be an indicator of how disadvantaged someone is. Sure statistics tell us that certain races have lower stats but maybe that's because they rely on AA to take them places. maybe if AA didn't exist they'd be more motivated to focus on school. I grew up in the inner city as an asian and I didn't have many opportunites but I still worked hard. I think the root of the problem for certain races is the lack of a "nucleus" type family. For me my parents always encouraged education and I think that's common with Asian students but maybe not so in other races. Anyway, the bottom line is that every student should be able to earn a spot by their own merit. If they can't then maybe they don't belong there. and if we really think that we need AA it should be case by case. Also, the notion that non URMs would not want to work in the inner city is ridiculous.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I agree with the OP. The fact that someone's skin color imparts an inherent disadvantage in life seems bizarre.

yes

 

[RogueUnicorn]

The whole point of giving preference to URMs is to facilitate diversity. It is assumed that URMs are at a disadvantage when taking standardized tests which favor white people because of the opportunities they've had that blacks have not. This is true... although income is probably a better predictor than race (for example I am URM, but have had every opportunity in the world)

surprisingly, it's not.

 

[IceMan0824]

For all those who are quick to criticize and downplay the need for affirmative action, I have just two questions for you.

When growing up, have you ever felt that you were benefited (or given the benefit of the doubt) because of your race over someone considered URM? (Think really hard about this. If you need, ask someone designated URM if they have every experienced some form of institutionalized discrimination)

If only scholastic accomplishments were taken into consideration, and all the top school now contain 85% Asian and 15% of the Whites, would you think this is fair?

Now this is a rhetorical question, but in situation #2, how many alumni and outside grants would you expect such a school to have to be able to provide to its students?

Before you begin to criticize URM status, maybe you might ask yourself why such a policy was enacted in the first. According to me, I believe the imperfect system was created to correct a gross injustice that was evident in our academic system. Can the system be improved? Yes, but it serves a purpose and cannot just be eliminated, it must be perfected to bring about its own destruction.

I liken it to the minimum wage standard. Sure, as economist, we can argue that the minimum wage creates an artificial floor and distorts maximum productivity and efficiency when it unequilibrize marginal cost and marginal benefit but it would be quite difficult to explain to the layman why it is necessary not to create a safety net for the part time worker making $6.50/hr when the CEO can pocket millions.

 

[Trexate]

When growing up, have you ever felt that you were benefited (or given the benefit of the doubt) because of your race over someone considered URM?

No. But I don't live in the south either. I've seen people discriminated against because of this, but it did not benefit me in any way.

(Think really hard about this. If you need, ask someone designated URM if they have every experienced some form of institutionalized discrimination)

Mutually exclusive from your preceding statement. People experience discrimination every day. The difference is, when it's based on the color of your skin it's a travesty. When it's based on your inability to afford (or refusal to buy) expensive clothes it's just 'kids being kids.'

If only scholastic accomplishments were taken into consideration, and all the top school now contain 85% Asian and 15% of the Whites, would you think this is fair?

Yes. If more people earned their way into positions, jobs, schools, etc., I think the country would be better off. The current system of being given a job because you know someone, or you're 'special' is extremely flawed. If you aren't qualified for something, you shouldn't receive it in an attempt to make life fair. Life isn't fair. QQ and move on.

Now this is a rhetorical question, but in situation #2, how many alumni and outside grants would you expect such a school to have to be able to provide to its students?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, or be hinting at.

 

[Compass]

We could argue about this either way.

There is bias already in the system: you either benefit from this, or you don't, people who benefit from it will argue for it, people who don't will argue against it, and I'll sit there and discuss that

There is bias already in the system: you either benefit from this, or you don't, people who benefit from it will argue for it, people who don't will argue against it, and I'll sit there and discuss that

There is bias already in the system: you either benefit from this, or you don't, people who benefit from it will argue for it, people who don't will argue against it, and I'll sit there and discuss that

There is bias already in the system: you either benefit from this, or you don't, people who benefit from it will argue for it, people who don't will argue against it, and I'll sit there and discuss that...

 

[NickNaylor]

I think that AA is, in principle, a noble idea. I think there are people whose lives have been destroyed by patent injustice, and there should be some form of "compensation" for that. The problem is when you try and implement such a system and you necessarily make it very general. This is where you run into people who abuse the system or who reap the benefits but clearly aren't meant to.

To have an effective AA system, you have to review each person extremely thoroughly. Obviously a medical school isn't going to spend the time, money, and effort to do this, thus we have URM.

 

[mcnabb5]

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I believe part of the reason for the URM status is a policy attempt to curb the racial disparities within our health system. I think you see the effect of URM status most strongly in medical school applications in particularly (as opposed to law school) for this reason. One of the things contributing to the large racial disparities that you see in healthcare is that of miscommunication between provider and patient. Two ways to solve this would be either to increase provider education to be aware of communications differences or to increase the amount of providers with a similar communications framework/culture/background which would help alleviate the miscommunication. I think changing/enhancing provider education is a decades-long process that the entire medical system is currently undergoing, but that process takes time and increasing the amount of URM providers would help bring about a change at a much quicker pace to reduce disparities. I don’t think there is validity to the argument that accepting unqualified URMs “dilutes” the quality of doctors. If you get in, that’s one thing, but you still have to make it through medical school to practice as a physician. And if you can, then you’re probably qualified.

 

[Van Chowder]

Isn't the fact that URMs get an advantage during the medical school application process in a way a form of racism against everyone else in the process? I just think it is unfair for non-URM students to be penalized for the race they were born into. Any thoughts?

Quit your crying.

 

[shiftingmirage]

There is bias already in the system: you either benefit from this, or you don't, people who benefit from it will argue for it, people who don't will argue against it, and I'll sit there and discuss that

Not true. There are people that benefit from AA that despise it because others assume they got to their position because of AA, not merit, hard work, etc.

I'm not a URM and believe AA is beneficial but don't like how it is implemented. As others have stated, you check a box. I think individuals, be them black, white, purple, or somewhere in between, should write something stating they were disadvantaged. If they went to a HS where the graduation rate was 20%, if they were dodging gun fire when they checked their mail.

Tons of studies have shown that diversity is beneficial in education. People from different backgrounds have different opinions, experiences, that are attributes to discussions. My school (sadly) has way too many rich white people. Some people have even stated that poor people shouldn't get health care since they can't afford to pay for it. Because obviously people choose to be poor

I do believe there are some double standards involving race. There are the Black Entertainment Awards. If tomorrow someone makes the White Entertainment Awards, it will be called racist, but the BET is a about pride, not race.

Lastly, white people have AA, we just call it clout. Remember when G.W. got into Harvard? I think we can all agree that it wasn't based on merit.

 

[Compass]

Not true. There are people that benefit from AA that despise it because others assume they got to their position because of AA, not merit, hard work, etc.

I'm not a URM and believe AA is beneficial but don't like how it is implemented. As others have stated, you check a box. I think individuals, be them black, white, purple, or somewhere inbetween, should right something stating they were disadvantaged. If they went to a HS where the graduation rate was 20%, if they were dodging gun fire when they checked their mail.

Tons of studies have shown that diversity is beneficial in education. People from different backgrounds have different opinions, experiences, that are attributes to discussions. My school (sadly) had way too many rich white people. Some people have even stated that poor people shouldn't get health care since they can't afford to pay for it. Because obviously people choose to be poor

I do believe there are some double standards involving race. There are the Black Entertainment Awards. If tomorrow someone makes the White Entertainment Awards, it will be called racist, but the BET is a about pride, not race.

Lastly, white people have AA, we just call it clout. Remember when G.W. got into Harvard? I think we can all agree that it wasn't based on merit.

It's hard to categorize things when I have to document exceptions to everything. Generally speaking, AA is favored by those can use it, and is not by those who can't.

 

[Trexate]

Not true. There are people that benefit from AA that despise it because others assume they got to their position because of AA, not merit, hard work, etc.

I'm not a URM and believe AA is beneficial but don't like how it is implemented. As others have stated, you check a box. I think individuals, be them black, white, purple, or somewhere inbetween, should right something stating they were disadvantaged. If they went to a HS where the graduation rate was 20%, if they were dodging gun fire when they checked their mail.

Tons of studies have shown that diversity is beneficial in education. People from different backgrounds have different opinions, experiences, that are attributes to discussions. My school (sadly) had way too many rich white people. Some people have even stated that poor people shouldn't get health care since they can't afford to pay for it. Because obviously people choose to be poor

I do believe there are some double standards involving race. There are the Black Entertainment Awards. If tomorrow someone makes the White Entertainment Awards, it will be called racist, but the BET is a about pride, not race.

Lastly, white people have AA, we just call it clout. Remember when G.W. got into Harvard? I think we can all agree that it wasn't based on merit.

 

[Simplify]

I do believe there are some double standards involving race. There are the Black Entertainment Awards. If tomorrow someone makes the White Entertainment Awards, it will be called racist, but the BET is a about pride, not race.

You were on track for greatness until you said that last part. Of course BET is about race. Racism is a two way street, but it is usually only recognized when a white man is driving on it.

 

[TheDuder]

I'm for AA, but I'd rather see it implemented as increased funding for preschools/elementary/middle/high schools with large populations from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than admitting people into med. school with lower stats on the basis of race, we should be working harder towards ensuring that everyone has the same educational opportunities from a young age, and can therefore be expected to achieve on the same level. Obviously this won't happen overnight, but this is the ideal scenario, in my opinion.

 

[Siggy]

To make people with only low 30s MCATS and sub 4.0 gpas feel insecure and inferior.

[sarcasm]I thought that was the point of the DO schools. Although, to be fair, you can't beat the weather at WU/COMP. I'd like more options for lunch, though, than a Toms, Subway, and Flame Broiler. [/sarcasm]

 

[shiftingmirage]

You were on track for greatness until you said that last part. Of course BET is about race. Racism is a two way street, but it is usually only recognized when a white man is driving on it.

Your post reminded me of something. So I'm a bigger female, and have some muscles. My friend is moving so I go to the new place to help her out. Her dad refused to let me carry anything of substance. Another time I was volunteering at a park and we were re-multching the trees. I was filling up the wheelbarrows with the multch and the guy directing it asked me at least 4 times if I would rather rake the multch around the trees and let the guys (he was using the term loosely, but was referring to a bunch of males) do the loading. I told him no and in my head I was thinking of alternative methods of pitchfork use. It ticked me off that because I was (and still am) a female, that I am simply incapable of doing physical labor.

Now, growing up, my mother traveled a lot for work so the kids would always be carrying her bags at the airport or unloading the car. But when we did, it was an act of kindness/charity/respect...

Three different instances of a women not doing/being discouraged from doing heavy lifting. Two viewed as sexism, one viewed as being nice. I know they say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but in these instances, I am the beholoder, and I'm flip-flopping.

 

[2014MD]

I'm for AA, but I'd rather see it implemented as increased funding for preschools/elementary/middle/high schools with large populations from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than admitting people into med. school with lower stats on the basis of race, we should be working harder towards ensuring that everyone has the same educational opportunities from a young age, and can therefore be expected to achieve on the same level. Obviously this won't happen overnight, but this is the ideal scenario, in my opinion.

👍

 

[BrokenDisco]

I'm for AA, but I'd rather see it implemented as increased funding for preschools/elementary/middle/high schools with large populations from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than admitting people into med. school with lower stats on the basis of race, we should be working harder towards ensuring that everyone has the same educational opportunities from a young age, and can therefore be expected to achieve on the same level. Obviously this won't happen overnight, but this is the ideal scenario, in my opinion.

👍👍

 

[MCATBear]

I've been debating whether to respond to this thread because I get a little emotional about some issues, but I'm trying to be better at engaging in conversations when this happens and not just closing off. I apologize if my response comes across as attacking anyone. That is not my intention.

So first, this has been mentioned before but a lot of responses seem to be ignoring it, URM stands for under-represented minority, as in communities of people who represent a larger percentage of the overall population than of the physician population. The purpose of encouraging URM applicants and treating that as a benefit for a applicant is to help increase the physician population to match the overall population. Like it or not, many people feel more comfortable sharing personal health information with a doctor of their race, and having a physician population which is proportional to the general population will improve overall health care because of this. The argument here is not that people with URM status have been disadvantaged and should receive a handout.

The second thing I want to address is the frequency of assertions of colorblindness or reverse racism/reverse discrimination. On the first count, I think we would all agree that the color of your skin shouldn't matter, but it does matter, and we wouldn't be having this conversation if it didn't. I'm not going to make a detailed argument here except to say that a culture doesn't quickly (if ever) recover from one race enslaving another or one race taking over the land of another in a process that resulted in the elimination of the majority of that race's population. Given these histories, I really don't see how somebody can call "reverse racism" and believe that it is the same thing. If a person of color or a community doesn't trust or like white people as a result of a history of violence, that may be frustrating to you as a white person who has done nothing to them personally, but it is not remotely comparable to racism in the other direction. Similarly, if someone a med school admits a URM student because they want to help change the disproportionate physician population, this is not comparable to a med school not submitting a URM student because they prefer the company of white people.

If we look at the fact that certain populations are underrepresented in health care we can make one of four arguments that I can think of:
1. pure coincidence because race doesn't matter.
2. Those populations are somehow disadvantaged in the process of becoming a doctor
3. those populations are not interested in becoming a doctor, and
4. those populations are less capable of becoming a doctor, presumably because they are less intelligent or don't work as hard.

I don't believe anyone on here is arguing #4, and I'm honestly curious if the people who don't believe #2 is true believe in #1 or #3 or if I'm missing something. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my opinion on this.
ps. I'm white, and that does matter.

 

[Narmerguy]

I've been debating whether to respond to this thread because I get a little emotional about some issues, but I'm trying to be better at engaging in conversations when this happens and not just closing off. I apologize if my response comes across as attacking anyone. That is not my intention.

So first, this has been mentioned before but a lot of responses seem to be ignoring it, URM stands for under-represented minority, as in communities of people who represent a larger percentage of the overall population than of the physician population. The purpose of encouraging URM applicants and treating that as a benefit for a applicant is to help increase the physician population to match the overall population. Like it or not, many people feel more comfortable sharing personal health information with a doctor of their race, and having a physician population which is proportional to the general population will improve overall health care because of this. The argument here is not that people with URM status have been disadvantaged and should receive a handout.

The second thing I want to address is the frequency of assertions of colorblindness or reverse racism/reverse discrimination. On the first count, I think we would all agree that the color of your skin shouldn't matter, but it does matter, and we wouldn't be having this conversation if it didn't. I'm not going to make a detailed argument here except to say that a culture doesn't quickly (if ever) recover from one race enslaving another or one race taking over the land of another in a process that resulted in the elimination of the majority of that race's population. Given these histories, I really don't see how somebody can call "reverse racism" and believe that it is the same thing. If a person of color or a community doesn't trust or like white people as a result of a history of violence, that may be frustrating to you as a white person who has done nothing to them personally, but it is not remotely comparable to racism in the other direction. Similarly, if someone a med school admits a URM student because they want to help change the disproportionate physician population, this is not comparable to a med school not submitting a URM student because they prefer the company of white people.

If we look at the fact that certain populations are underrepresented in health care we can make one of four arguments that I can think of:
1. pure coincidence because race doesn't matter.
2. Those populations are somehow disadvantaged in the process of becoming a doctor
3. those populations are not interested in becoming a doctor, and
4. those populations are less capable of becoming a doctor, presumably because they are less intelligent or don't work as hard.

I don't believe anyone on here is arguing #4, and I'm honestly curious if the people who don't believe #2 is true believe in #1 or #3 or if I'm missing something. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my opinion on this.
ps. I'm white, and that does matter.

Wow this was a very solid post. Very well stated 👍

 

[Narmerguy]

Your post reminded me of something. So I'm a bigger female, and have some muscles. My friend is moving so I go to the new place to help her out. Her dad refused to let me carry anything of substance. Another time I was volunteering at a park and we were re-multching the trees. I was filling up the wheelbarrows with the multch and the guy directing it asked me at least 4 times if I would rather rake the multch around the trees and let the guys (he was using the term loosely, but was referring to a bunch of males) do the loading. I told him no and in my head I was thinking of alternative methods of pitchfork use. It ticked me off that because I was (and still am) a female, that I am simply incapable of doing physical labor.

Now, growing up, my mother traveled a lot for work so the kids would always be carrying her bags at the airport or unloading the car. But when we did, it was an act of kindness/charity/respect...

Three different instances of a women not doing/being discouraged from doing heavy lifting. Two viewed as sexism, one viewed as being nice. I know they say beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but in these instances, I am the beholoder, and I'm flip-flopping.

I don't think it's necessarily sexism as it is the practice of respect that men are taught from a very young age. It is frustrating for me that some women take offense to these kind of gestures. What are men to do? On one hand, women complain that chivalry is dead and that men don't respect women any longer. Some men, such as myself, were taught at an early age not to ever lay hands on a woman, to open doors for them, and to generally treat them with a respect that is befitting a woman. Imagine my confusion when I am attacked and critisized for opening a door or for offering to do the heavy lifting (this one is common).

Certainly, we are all aware that it is possible for women to also do the heavy chore of lifting things but they don't have to. I am notably stronger and better fit than the majority of guys and certainly women so it is not at all improbable for me to lift something heavy rather than a woman. Why get angry over that?

My only problem is, be consistent! If you don't want guys to treat afford women a special kind of respect but want to be treated like we treat each other (which many women honestly don't have a real clue about) than stay that way. What frustrates me is hearing womean complain about both the lack of consideration on men's part and our sexist condescension of their rights and abilities.

 

[Phosphorus Ylide]

[sarcasm]I thought that was the point of the DO schools. Although, to be fair, you can't beat the weather at WU/COMP. I'd like more options for lunch, though, than a Toms, Subway, and Flame Broiler. [/sarcasm]

Speaking of WU/COMP, I need to do that secondary today.

 

[casillas]

I understand the concept of URM status; however, it seems more applicable to financial status as opposed to skin color. I know plenty of white people who are poor who's families have been in an endless cycle of poorness.

The AMCAS does ask if you consider yourself disadvantaged and i believe medical schools would take this into account as much as they would take race.

I actually want to be one of these physicians and am of Asian descent. This is my primary motivation for medicine. 🙂

That's great, but the reality of the matter is that not many white doctors are willing to work in inner cities that have mostly minority populations.


And i do agree that at times the policy may be unfair when comparing two people with similar stats but of different races.

Another HUGE factor people forget is that minorities usually make up a tiny proportion of a medical class size.

 

[enamor2]

In my opinion, I don't think its right to have different standards in a career such as medicine because this career deals with people's lives. Is anyone really going to want to put their faith and trust in a doctor who was let into medical school because of the race that they are, instead of the knowledge background he/she has? MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA's are a generally good predictor of performance in medical school, which is why medical schools largely rely on a combination of the two to predict success in medical school.

This is applicable to not just URM's, but also to those states who have allopathic medical schools with an average of 26 on the MCAT (some states in the South), while the rest of the country averages around a 31 or higher. Isn't the system just setting up more people for subpar health while there are other excellent, qualified applicants of ORM/non-minority backgrounds?

Just my two cents, and my intentions are not to offend anyone 🙂

 

[TheDuder]

In my opinion, I don't think its right to have different standards in a career such as medicine because this career deals with people's lives. Is anyone really going to want to put their faith and trust in a doctor who was let into medical school because of the race that they are, instead of the knowledge background he/she has? MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA's are a generally good predictor of performance in medical school, which is why medical schools largely rely on a combination of the two to predict success in medical school.

This is applicable to not just URM's, but also to those states who have allopathic medical schools with an average of 26 on the MCAT (some states in the South), while the rest of the country averages around a 31 or higher. Isn't the system just setting up more people for subpar health while there are other excellent, qualified applicants of ORM/non-minority backgrounds?

Just my two cents, and my intentions are not to offend anyone 🙂

So 26=subpar health, 31=average health, 45=perfect health?

 

[shiftingmirage]

My only problem is, be consistent!

I think that is what Simplify was getting at. How is an organization/group/whatever that caters to white people be deemed racist, but one that caters to another race not? (This goes back to me saying BET is a pride thing, not race, and (s)he stating it's still race). One needs to be consistent.

 

[Simplify]

I think that is what Simplify was getting at. How is an organization/group/whatever that caters to white people be deemed racist, but one that caters to another race not? (This goes back to me saying BET is a pride thing, not race, and (s)he stating it's still race). One needs to be consistent.

Exactly.

 

[cardinal2010]

Wow this was a very solid post. Very well stated 👍

Yes, I agree that there are inequalities in education that serves as a preparation for medical school, but should medical school be the place to correct said inequalities? I don't think so. We are talking about determining who our nations doctors are, where a higher quality of physician = more lives saved. Now I'm not saying that high MCAT/GPA = great physician, but there is a correlation. People should be let in on their merits, of which disadvantaged status should play a practical role, not a symbolic one. If two people have 3.7/33, but one was typical college student and one got it while working on the side to support his family, then the latter should get in, as the ability to perform well in school while under stress and with a huge time commitment indicates the second will likely to be a better physician. Remember, this admisisons process is about determining who is the most likely to succeed in medical school and as a doctor, and shouldn't me the method through which Society's ills are addressed.


On another note, as others have mentioned, the largest opponents to affirmative action I've met are hard working, intelligent, URM individuals. They hate the stigma that AA puts on their acceptance and success at prestigious institutions. There are huge problems with inequality of opportunity in this country, but that is something we need to address from the bottom, through making inner city education and social support better, not from the top, where less qualified individuals are selected to be your doctor.

 

[scattun]

Is anyone really going to want to put their faith and trust in a doctor who was let into medical school because of the race that they are, instead of the knowledge background he/she has?

Getting into medical school is not the end of the road. All future practitioners have to pass licensing boards before they are allowed to practice independently. Theoretically, if you pass those, you are fit to practice, end of story. As far as I know, there is no URM curve for that, so everyone has to prove themselves along the way.

 

[shiftingmirage]

There are huge problems with inequality of opportunity in this country, but that is something we need to address from the bottom, through making inner city education and social support better, not from the top, where less qualified individuals are selected to be your doctor.

Very good point. What % of disadvantaged students make it to applying to medical school? I think it is fair to say it is a small number. What about all those that don't make it that far, or choose another career?
For med school apps, individuals can apply as disadvantaged, but other careers may not make accomidations. They want the guy that came from the ivy, and did 4 internships. I think when programs such as AA are implemented, the (is it fair to say?) dominant group acknowledges that a given group is disadvantaged, but because there is a program to overcome said disadvantages, it's ok (not ok, but couldn't think of a better word). What about all those that don't qualify/get to levels where the programs are implemented? Seems like it leaves a lot of people SOL.

 

[Handy388]

I used to be a huge antagonist against the whole URM thing when I was applying, and now actually in med school, I can tell you that there aren't that much actual URM here (I have a feeling a lot of URM in my class are mixed race with upper middle class background).


So yeah, we need more URM physicians, and more URMs from the actual ghetto.

 

[sustentacular]

Anyone else get annoyed when people use terms like "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination?"

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Anyone else get annoyed when people use terms like "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination?"

somewhat, if only because it's almost exclusively used by those who have never actually experienced racism

 

[WNT Signaling]

Anyone else get annoyed when people use terms like "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination?"

I guess Glen Beck posts on these forums too

 

[BrokenDisco]

We do need more URM doctors but qualified ones. The interest and motivation to become a doctor begins in grade school and that's where we should be pouring our resources, not AA. Otherwise the issue will never be resolved.