Who is considered URM?

[UCLAMAN]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all...OK....I really really really hope this doesn't start a flame war or anything.

anyhow...I was curious as to what ethnicites were considered URM? Do Filipino's count as URMs? Anyone have a link to the definition?

 

[Wrigleyville]

This depends on the school. There might not be very many asians at WVU, so they'd consider asians to be underrepresented... but UCLA is replete with asians, so they wouldn't be considered URMs there. There is no cut-and-dried standard. It probably varies by year, as well, depending on a school's shifting demographics.

 

[UCLAMAN]

So there isn't anything written up by amcas or otherwise that defines this?

 

[Wrigleyville]

AMCAS is only interested in whether or not you're "disadvantaged".

There is also a racial self-identity section that lets you pick your race. The individual schools might look at your race and decide to interview you because they have a shortage of your particular race, but there are no national guidelines in terms of which groups should be considered underrepresented by all schools.

Like the rest of the application process, it's mostly a crap-shoot. Each school pretty much does things their own way.

 

[Jalby]

It is written somewhere, but I don't feel like doing the searching for you. Check www.aamc.org.

As for the def, it's black, latino, native american, and islanders. (Might have forgotton one. Not fillipinos

 

[UCLAMAN]

ok....just wondering...several people on interviews have told me that filipinos were URM's...i didn't think so...but i was wondering if they were smoking something i wasn't so i thought i'd post.

 

[gower]

For years, the standard definition for URM has been:

Native American (on a tribal registry)

Puerto Rican (Mainland)

Mexican-American (US citizen/permanent resident)

African-American (US citizen/permanent resident)


The definition has nothing to do with the number of applicants in any grouping. It has to do with American history, economics. and historical biases in admission.

There are a large number of different "minorities" in the US now. Some are over-represented in medical school these days.
The definition arose before the big wave of immigration which started about 1960 and has since accelerated.

Admission to medical school in this country had never been bias-free. Economic and social class has been a filter. Subsidized loans for medical students did not exist. There was systematic discrimination against Jews, Catholics and other non-WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) groups.

Anti-semitism was first broken about 1955. Beginning in the 1960s the barriers to the other groups began to fall. For various social and economic reasons, the numbers of those under-represented-in-medicine groups have not grown greatly.

Admisson to medical school has never been and is still not based only on grades and MCAT scores; if it were, it would be a disaster for the public. What has changed is that irrelevant criteria, such as ethnicity, religion and unsubsidized access to large amounts of money are no longer significant. On the other hand, on the lead up to a college/medical education, social and economic factors may still be significant. In that sense, it is still not a level field.

Unfair? What exactly would be fair? The answer is not as simple and obvious as it appears to many. Since even the college/university premeds attend is a factor (for several reasons beyond the obvious one of "prestige")--in admission, how do you propose to level that field? Some colleges have excellent, proactive advisors who have good contacts, while, at the other end of the scale, others have no advisors at all.

Life is never as simple as we would like it to be.