1. These are the only pools of UiMS. Schools take what they can and take a chance on who they think will perform.
2. UIMs tend to serve underserved populations that resemble them .
3. Undeserved populations are more likely to seek the care they need and entrust their physician if their physician is like them.
4. Schools are not there to protect applicants or matriculants, their mission is to serve the community. They minimize loss of medical students by adhering to the only selection critieria that have moderate correlation to completion of the rigors of medical school. MCAT/GPA.
5. You dont have an alternative , yet somehow the entire medical establishment and all the studies pointing to this fact are inadequate for you. lol.
1. If we agree that schools are not there to protect applicants or matriculants, then it should be no issue to expand slots, which was my initial point.
2. If you instead want to go at it by the benefit to society point, then any american physician is better than a non-american physician. In which case, the expansion of slots is socially desirable.
3. The expansion of slots is not only broadly socially desirable, but also desirable by applicants as well. How do we know that? By virtue of every new school filling up its inaugural and subsequent classes.
4. It's all well and easy to say that we should have a minimum, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that being 1SD within your/our score is as impactful as you think it is, or is worth the minimized risk. The devil's in the details. Where is the line and how are we sure the current line isn't sufficient? You keep referencing supposed data. Let's dive into it below.
6. You are missing the plot. Grades and MCAT show that you are ready to handle medical school. If you have a 2.0 and 487 you in all liklihood dont know how to study, or dont care to study. Why would i give you a seat if there are 100's of other candidates who display that they are ready for the rigor of medical school and I as a school can minimize risk of not graduating a full class.
7. They are not more classist they are the baseline for evaluation, yet another common thing in our ethos of evaluating people by the work they have done, not by the work they promise they will do.
8. Dont you think getting a BA or BS is also too classist?
9.As mentioned above postbacs can be cheaper than OOS tutition.
4. Why talk about 2.0 and 487? We're talking about DO standards. 2017 matriculants were cGPA 3.5 (SD = .3), sGPA 3.4 (SD not given), and MCAT 503 (SD = 5.3).
5. 7/7200 matriculants had a sub 2.0. 300/7200 had a sub 2.8.
6.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_9 - If we go by this relatively old 2005 paper, the risk difference for STEP failure between a 3.5 and 3.1 sGPA doesn't seem to be significant. And the difference between a 24 (new~ 497) and 27 (new~ 503) seems to be .1, so 10% more likely (assuming 0 SE, which is a very generous assumption).
7. Digging through the data shows a much muddier suggested benefits from standards increases. And furthermore, it's likely nepotism or extremely extenuating circumstances that 2.0 or 487 applicants are gaining admit. So the current situation is not what you're sensationally describing. And the benefits are far from as definitive or clear as you're saying. Your cut-offs are likewise arbitrary and based off of intution.
10. Get a grip, Not a single day goes by where DO students on this forum dont complain about not having the same opportunities as MD students.
If you want equal GME outcomes you need to have equal resources, education, and selection criteria.
Currently DO schools have an image problem of being the place where students end up when they dont get into an MD school. By increasing class sizes, opening more schools, and not investing in research, DO schools are going to continue to live up to that stereotype.
If you want to continue the status quo and basically continue to have two tiers of medical education and not have parity in outcomes this is great plan.
11. You can call it protectionist, but I am going to have call people my collegues, I would like medicine to continue to be synonymous with the best and brightest.
8. SDN loves to complain. They complain considerably more than any of my classmates with greater passion. The majority of my classmates didn't want research because they were okay with FM or a specialty that doesn't require research, which are most of them.
9. I don't necessarily care about equal opportunities in the same way that I don't think it a tragedy that harvard med students have more opportunities than UCSD med students. Or that UCSD students have more research/mentorship/etc opportunities than my school. Many of my classmates went to neighboring allopathic schools to do research. If you accept KY-COM's acceptance, sure, that might be more rough to do research, but it's not impossible. I don't agree that the lack of relative resources should doom a school. To analogize using undergrad institutions: Students from calstate los angeles don't have the research opportunities that UCLA students do. Arguing that admissions standards should be raised until CSULA is equivalent to UCLA is insane. They have different purposes and are equally valid institutions for our higher ed system.
10. There is necessarily a tiering between harvard and UCSD. One that only UCSD students are probably keen on. Especially the ones who didn't get into harvard and were gunning for it. But the difference is likely null for most people, including most med students, if we're being honest. (aside from reputation differences)
11. From the outside, we're in med school and have a >99% chance of being a physician (placement rate). It is on par with MDs.
12. Nice strawman, I clearly stated that it was to protect the schools mission not just the goals of the applicants. If a person fails out of medical school it is on them, and it is their own money they are wasting just like any other higher education endeavor.
13. lol@ race card. Im not white so thanks?
14. See here is the difference between you and me. I want DO/MDs to be interchangeable. I want the gme outcomes to be the same and I want the success and attrition rates to be the same. I would rather they all be MD. But that also means that the standards are the same in terms of clinical , research and admissions, until that happens there will always be the disparity and bias that gets talked about on this forum.
12. Again, if we agree on that, then great. Let's not talk about protecting students if you don't care about that. Don't pretend to wave around, "i'm actually concerned about med students placement rates," if you aren't. You're more concerned about preferred placement rates. That's fine. I'm saying that it's a common technique and you're using it.
13. Again, success and attrition rates are comparable. See above.
