Why do school reject people with above average stats?

[deleted787552]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Let

3) You make the assumption that the system is ripe for corruption as indeed it was thru the early 1980s. Partly, the implementation of AMCAS was to stop the favoritism based on money. In the late 1980s, admissions, financial aid and foundation (donations) decisions were separated and remain so to this day. No school can consider financial ability to pay nor the influence of donation. One of the "benefits" of large corporate entities now running hospital systems associated with medical schools is he fear of impact to reputation and marketing. The general counsel's of both the parent/associated companies and the medical schools keep an annoyingly tight leash on ensuring all regulations are complied with including LCME, AAMC, AMCAS, Joint Commission, ACGME, and the rest. This is called oversight.

Has this really changed much though? The ability to pay is certainly still a factor especially with regards to legacy admissions. I’m sure Many schools still accept students based on the name brand or donor/legacy status of their parents. It’s also hard to believe that the ability to pay doesnt factor in. This whole process is expensive af. From taking the mcat to submitting apps to matriculating, it all involves hundreds of thousands of dollars that favors the wealthy. Even with FAP it’s still super expensive and results in turning away poor/middle class people.

The other issue is that this system still favors the rich and the children of doctors. That’s the only reason I can find to explain why the majority of medical students have doctor parents. There’s so many factors that benefit them in this process as compared to everyone else. Favoritism definetly still exists

 

[dr_kateb]

Another SDN classic

 

[libertyyne]

Has this really changed much though? The ability to pay is certainly still a factor especially with regards to legacy admissions. I’m sure Many schools still accept students based on the name brand or donor/legacy status of their parents. It’s also hard to believe that the ability to pay doesnt factor in. This whole process is expensive af. From taking the mcat to submitting apps to matriculating, it all involves hundreds of thousands of dollars that favors the wealthy. Even with FAP it’s still super expensive and results in turning away poor/middle class people.

The other issue is that this system still favors the rich and the children of doctors. That’s the only reason I can find to explain why the majority of medical students have doctor parents. There’s so many factors that benefit them in this process as compared to everyone else. Favoritism definetly still exists

They way the children of Doctors used to be given preferential treatment was by auto-admit, no question, part of the Hippocratic oath. Now the way the children of Rich people are given preference is more insidious, they end up going to better schools, have access to tutors from day one in middle school, Dont have to work dead end jobs for sustenance, and can get involved in ec's in a more meaningful manner and have easier time getting access to clinical shadowing etc. However, this just means they are better candidates at the end of the day, not that they got in because they are rich. They got in because they have better scores, better applications. Life is not fair, and society is not fair. There have been attempts to help adcoms by collecting ses status and hardship essays. But coming from a poor background I didnt want to get into medical school because someone took pity on me or gave me a chance because I was poor, i wanted to get into medical school based on my abilities.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

"I say what I want to say and do what I want to do, there is no in between, people will either love you for it or hate you for it"- the GOAT Eminem.

Hopefully I taught y'all some valuable lessons. Now go write your notes, I have some CT scans to read. Thankfully I have a life outside medicine that other specialties can't afford to have. Maybe that's why y'all are miserable? Just a thought.

Wow.

 

[OrthoTraumaMD]

Wow.

Just trollin’...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

Wow.

Guess who's going to go unmatched this year, or eventually get kicked out of a residency program?

 

[LBJLA23]

Guess who's going to go unmatched this year, or eventually get kicked out of a residency program?

Unmatched LOL whatever helps you sleep at night

 

[deleted787552]

They way the children of Doctors used to be given preferential treatment was by auto-admit, no question, part of the Hippocratic oath. Now the way the children of Rich people are given preference is more insidious, they end up going to better schools, have access to tutors from day one in middle school, Dont have to work dead end jobs for sustenance, and can get involved in ec's in a more meaningful manner and have easier time getting access to clinical shadowing etc. However, this just means they are better candidates at the end of the day, not that they got in because they are rich. They got in because they have better scores, better applications. Life is not fair, and society is not fair. There have been attempts to help adcoms by collecting ses status and hardship essays. But coming from a poor background I didnt want to get into medical school because someone took pity on me or gave me a chance because I was poor, i wanted to get into medical school based on my abilities.

But then there's things like legacy admissions that make this process even more unfair by automatically granting them II/acceptances. You're right, the whole process is built to benefit the wealthy. As you said not having to work, having a lot of time to do ECs etc does put these people at a disadvantage. There's way too many 'soft' requirements these days that are only making it harder for non wealthy people to succeed

 

[AspiringDoc169]

But then there's things like legacy admissions that make this process even more unfair by automatically granting them II/acceptances. You're right, the whole process is built to benefit the wealthy. As you said not having to work, having a lot of time to do ECs etc does put these people at a disadvantage. There's way too many 'soft' requirements these days that are only making it harder for non wealthy people to succeed

Agree with this, it is not a fair process by all means.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

But then there's things like legacy admissions that make this process even more unfair by automatically granting them II/acceptances.

This group is so small compared to the overall pool of acceptances it has negligible impact on any one applicant. Also, if you think it's a problem in medical school just wait until you apply to residency. Nepotism is rampant in medicine and it's best to just get used to it.

 

[libertyyne]

But then there's things like legacy admissions that make this process even more unfair by automatically granting them II/acceptances. You're right, the whole process is built to benefit the wealthy. As you said not having to work, having a lot of time to do ECs etc does put these people at a disadvantage. There's way too many 'soft' requirements these days that are only making it harder for non wealthy people to succeed

It is not built to benefit the wealthy, The wealthy know how to play the game. The soft requirements dont make it harder for non-wealthy to succeed, the non wealthy tend to have lower mcats compared to their wealthy counterparts. The process is very fair, its fairer than most things in life including finding a job, getting raises, and catching a break in any other competitive field in art or science or finance.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It is not built to benefit the wealthy, The wealthy know how to play the game. The soft requirements dont make it harder for non-wealthy to succeed, the non wealthy tend to have lower mcats compared to their wealthy counterparts. The process is very fair, its fairer than most things in life including finding a job, getting raises, and catching a break in any other competitive field in art or science or finance.

It may not be built to benefit the wealthy, but it most certainly does. Being wealthy gives you more time to complete the soft requirements more extensively, gives you more time to focus on school and the MCAT, gives you a better chance at making valuable connections, makes it easier to apply broadly and go on more interviews.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that wealthy takers have higher MCAT scores. It’s a lot easier to study for it when you aren’t also working to support a family.

The process absolutely gives well-off applicants a big leg up.

 

[libertyyne]

It may not be built to benefit the wealthy, but it most certainly does. Being wealthy gives you more time to complete the soft requirements more extensively, gives you more time to focus on school and the MCAT, gives you a better chance at making valuable connections, makes it easier to apply broadly and go on more interviews.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that wealthy takers have higher MCAT scores. It’s a lot easier to study for it when you aren’t also working to support a family.

The process absolutely gives well-off applicants a big leg up.

Life gives well off applicants a leg up, the process was designed to be fair .

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Life gives well off applicants a leg up, the process was designed to be fair .

That’s not really a good answer. Our current healtcare system benefits the wealthy as well. Should we not try to make it better because “life gives well off patients a leg up”? The process was designed to be fair, and there are measures to help even the playing field, but they can be improved because there is still a big benefit to being wealthy.

 

[libertyyne]

That’s not really a good answer. Our current healtcare system benefits the wealthy as well. Should we not try to make it better because “life gives well off patients a leg up”? The process was designed to be fair, and there are measures to help even the playing field, but they can be improved because there is still a big benefit to being wealthy.

Equal access is fairness. It may take a driven person from a lower SES to spend an extra year or two gathering what is required in terms of ECs or take extra time to study or be able to afford an mcat class. Doesnt make the process inherently unfair. Access to healthcare should be right, admission to medical school is not a right, it is a privilege. I am open hearing what measures you think would make it fairer. MCAT reduction occurs well before college possibly even close to primary schooling. Just like inteligence provides an advantage wealth does as well. Both of which you are usually born with.

 

[Goro]

This group is so small compared to the overall pool of acceptances it has negligible impact on any one applicant. Also, if you think it's a problem in medical school just wait until you apply to residency. Nepotism is rampant in medicine and it's best to just get used to it.

Indeed. One of our clinical colleagues mentioned that "Brown's residency programs are as inbred as an Alabama trailer park".

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Equal access is fairness. It may take a driven person from a lower SES to spend an extra year or two gathering what is required in terms of ECs or take extra time to study or be able to afford an mcat class. Doesnt make the process inherently unfair.

Is there equal access? When the process is as expensive as it is, it is not always as easy as just taking a couple extra years. Unless I wanted to subject my kids to an extremely difficult lifestyle for several years, without the military I would definitely not be able to afford the process. My wealthy counterpart would have no problem despite having the same responsibilities.

Access to healthcare should be right, admission to medical school is not a right, it is a privilege.

It’s definitely not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s still appropriate for how I was using it.

I am open hearing what measures you think would make it fairer.

I don’t personally have the time to spend trying to think of ways to improve something when there is zero chance anything I come up with will have any effect at all. But one thing off the top of my head would be to make it easier to get a fee waiver. There are plenty of people like me who don’t qualify but can’t afford to apply to more than a couple schools and take the MCAT and go to interviews, etc. But I don’t have more details than that because I haven’t thought it out more than that.

MCAT reduction occurs well before college possibly even close to primary schooling. Just like inteligence provides an advantage wealth does as well. Both of which you are usually born with.

This gives the impression that I’m saying people born into money should be penalized. I’m not.

 

[deleted787552]

This group is so small compared to the overall pool of acceptances it has negligible impact on any one applicant. Also, if you think it's a problem in medical school just wait until you apply to residency. Nepotism is rampant in medicine and it's best to just get used to it.

Nepotism is definitely rampant but it likely can affect other applicants.Many schools will automatically offer legacy students and II which in the admissions process is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome. Even if it's a 'small' number of applicants, there's only a limited number of II a school will send out total

 

[deleted787552]

Life gives well off applicants a leg up, the process was designed to be fair .

Just because it's designed in a particular way doesn't mean it'll work that way in real life. It clearly has major flaws considering how the majority of students are still children of doctors. In other words, there hasn't been too big of a change since the 'old' rules

 

[libertyyne]

Just because it's designed in a particular way doesn't mean it'll work that way in real life. It clearly has major flaws considering how the majority of students are still children of doctors. In other words, there hasn't been too big of a change since the 'old' rules

Medicine is one of the most meritocratic fields in America. The standards are fairly strict, physicians children arent strolling in with 489 mcats. They have better applications because they know how the game works. You keep on talking about how there is massive nepotism, How would that explain creeping up of MCAT scores and GPAs , or Research hours or Volunteer hours? Hint, it doesnt.

 

[hurtem&healem]

I am open hearing what measures you think would make it fairer.

I agree with you overall. Rich kids have advantages in anything they want to accomplish and there is nothing we can do to completely eliminate that. It is an inescapable part of life. However, the fee waiver is a point of contention for me, as well.

I was applying to med school as a 33 year old, married man, financially independent since the age of 17. What possible good excuse is there for a fee waiver to be contingent upon my parents' financial status? To keep trust fund kids from getting a waiver? What do you suppose the ratio is amongst 28+ year old applicants of entire financial independence vs. parents footing the several thousands of dollars it costs to apply.

 

[dr_kateb]

Whoa wealthy people have it easier than poor people when it comes to life opportunities? This is news to me. How long have you guys known this?

 

[deleted787552]

Medicine is one of the most meritocratic fields in America. The standards are fairly strict, physicians children arent strolling in with 489 mcats. They have better applications because they know how the game works. You keep on talking about how there is massive nepotism, How would that explain creeping up of MCAT scores and GPAs , or Research hours or Volunteer hours? Hint, it doesnt.

I guess that depends on your definition of meritocratic. It's not a true meritocracy due to the use of holistic admissions. You said the process was fair and I'm saying it's not. Whether there's anything that can be done to fix it at this point is debatable

 

[libertyyne]

I guess that depends on your definition of meritocratic. It's not a true meritocracy due to the use of holistic admissions. You said the process was fair and I'm saying it's not. Whether there's anything that can be done to fix it at this point is debatable

Please refer to the higher rates of admission at higher scales on the MCAT and come back and tell me it is not meritocratic. Also the whole purpose of holistic admissions process was to look at people who may be disadvantaged and may have traditionally been screened out. So which one is it? Would you prefer it to be just numbers where wealthy applicants are advantaged since grade school? Show me a more meritocratic system of admission to professional schools.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Please refer to the higher rates of admission at higher scales on the MCAT and come back and tell me it is not meritocratic. Also the whole purpose of holistic admissions process was to look at people who may be disadvantaged and may have traditionally been screened out. So which one is it? Would you prefer it to be just numbers where wealthy applicants are advantaged since grade school? Show me a more meritocratic system of admission to professional schools.

Yeah, it could be like law school admissions lol.

 

[deleted787552]

Please refer to the higher rates of admission at higher scales on the MCAT and come back and tell me it is not meritocratic. Also the whole purpose of holistic admissions process was to look at people who may be disadvantaged and may have traditionally been screened out. So which one is it? Would you prefer it to be just numbers where wealthy applicants are advantaged since grade school? Show me a more meritocratic system of admission to professional schools.

This is the whole purpose of this thread no? In a true meritocracy (by stats), everyone above x score would be admitted. That's not the case since even high scorers can still be rejected. Plenty of countries around the world use more truer meritocratic systems. In the US, I've heard Caltech is a good example of a real meritocracy or maybe even law school admissions

 

[libertyyne]

This is the whole purpose of this thread no? In a true meritocracy (by stats), everyone above x score would be admitted. That's not the case since even high scorers can still be rejected. Plenty of countries around the world use more truer meritocratic systems. In the US, I've heard Caltech is a good example of a real meritocracy or maybe even law school admissions

You seem to missing the point of the thread then. being good at interacting with people and being able to work with others to get LORS is part of the meritocracy.

 

[MacBee]

This is the whole purpose of this thread no? In a true meritocracy (by stats), everyone above x score would be admitted. That's not the case since even high scorers can still be rejected. Plenty of countries around the world use more truer meritocratic systems. In the US, I've heard Caltech is a good example of a real meritocracy or maybe even law school admissions

But who says that a "true" meritocracy has to necessarily be defined by stats? That's what you believe. AdComs that employ holistic admissions obviously believe otherwise. They're not arguing that it's not a meritocracy, they're just broadening the definition of the "merits" needed to get in.

 

[deleted787552]

But who says that a "true" meritocracy has to necessarily be defined by stats? That's what you believe. AdComs that employ holistic admissions obviously believe otherwise. They're not arguing that it's not a meritocracy, they're just broadening the definition of the "merits" needed to get in.

I was going by the world wide definition. In many other countries, a test score determines where you can go and things like ECs don't matter. I agree that it's just defined differently here

 

[MacBee]

I was going by the world wide definition. In many other countries, a test score determines where you can go and things like ECs don't matter. I agree that it's just defined differently here

“In many other countries” does not make it the “world wide definition”

 

[libertyyne]

I was going by the world wide definition. In many other countries, a test score determines where you can go and things like ECs don't matter. I agree that it's just defined differently here

ah yess other countries where people bribe exam officials to get better scores on standardized tests.

 

[libertyyne]

Do interviews even correlate with that though? Aside from weeding out sociopaths and hopelessly immature?

Do MMIs for behavioral questions actually screen for upstanding applicants?

I would guess they don't.

Its not a perfect system the literature i believe came from a canadian school that did the research surrounding MMI. If we can weed out sociopaths and hopelessly immature that is already a step ahead. Holistic admissions usually take into account distance traveled atleast that is the purpose.

 

[getdown]

This is called observer bias. Everyone applying thinks they're getting the short end of stick while those that have passed or are in admissions acknowledges there's method to the madness. No one side is going to win when emotions are used to make arguments.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

This is called observer bias. Everyone applying thinks they're getting the short end of stick while those that have passed or are in admissions acknowledges there's method to the madness. No one side is going to win when emotions are used to make arguments.

I mean, there can be a method to the madness wrt how adcoms assess applicants and still be system issues that make it more difficult for certain groups. Adcoms have nothing to do with the fee waiver process for example. But that observer bias definitely goes on.

 

[ChicagoBear]

There may be a method to the madness overall, but there can still be some weird and/or unexpected individual decisions. I had multiple acceptances, so the process worked for me. However, the process left me with some questions. Why was I accepted to two Midwestern Jesuit schools when the third Midwestern Jesuit school, where I had multiple family legacies (grandparents, parents, uncles) and parents who were "named society" givers - I wasn't even given an interview? Why was I accepted to a neighboring state's flagship (which is much higher ranked) than my resident state flagship where I was waitlisted?

Once again, the system worked - I got acceptances. But the acceptances I received would not have been the ones most people would have expected.

 

[altblue]

It is not built to benefit the wealthy, The wealthy know how to play the game. The soft requirements dont make it harder for non-wealthy to succeed, the non wealthy tend to have lower mcats compared to their wealthy counterparts. The process is very fair, its fairer than most things in life including finding a job, getting raises, and catching a break in any other competitive field in art or science or finance.

I respect your opinion a great deal, but I'm going to have to disagree with the overall fairness. You can't say a system is intrinsically fair if the playing field isn't level or all factors are fairly accounted for.

My parents were born here but can only really communicate with simple sentences. Hell, my dad can't read the basic CNN articles I sent him. But assuredly my 127 CARS, which brought down my overall, is inferior to that of a wealthy applicant with a 128?? That's the information you'd glean without accounting for SES in the system

I worked hard and smart to overpower wealthy students at my UG to score well above average. But am I equal to other applicants from stimulating households who have a 3.7+ and ample AP background??? I didn't know the damn difference between DNA and RNA before college lol

If Stanford can get giddy with joy because some applicant was lucky enough to publish repeatedly under a productive PI, I think schools can start considering the contextual factors behind an application. That is what I consider a fair evaluation

Do i mean that poor kids should be getting into Wash U en masse with a 3.6 513? No, byt the strength of an applicant is best appraised with that information. That's the sort of stuff that keeps the system fair.

 

[dr_kateb]

I respect your opinion a great deal, but I'm going to have to disagree with the overall fairness. You can't say a system is intrinsically fair if the playing field isn't level or all factors are fairly accounted for.

My parents were born here but can only really communicate with simple sentences. Hell, my dad can't read the basic CNN articles I sent him. But assuredly my 127 CARS, which brought down my overall, is inferior to that of a wealthy applicant with a 128?? That's the information you'd glean without accounting for SES in the system

I worked hard and smart to overpower wealthy students at my UG to score well above average. But am I equal to other applicants from stimulating households who have a 3.7+ and ample AP background??? I didn't know the damn difference between DNA and RNA before college lol

If Stanford can get giddy with joy because some applicant was lucky enough to publish repeatedly under a productive PI, I think schools can start considering the contextual factors behind an application. That is what I consider a fair evaluation

Do i mean that poor kids should be getting into Wash U en masse with a 3.6 513? No, byt the strength of an applicant is best appraised with that information. That's the sort of stuff that keeps the system fair.

Equity is intrinsically unequal.

 

[Goro]

This is the whole purpose of this thread no? In a true meritocracy (by stats), everyone above x score would be admitted. That's not the case since even high scorers can still be rejected. Plenty of countries around the world use more truer meritocratic systems. In the US, I've heard Caltech is a good example of a real meritocracy or maybe even law school admissions

4.0 automatons are a dime-a-dozen. There's an ocean of academic clones out there. How do we distinguish them?
What hyperacheivers fail to understand is that the road traveled is meritorious in and of itself.

 

[altblue]

Equity is intrinsically unequal.

Actions taken to remedy inequality support equality.

 

[dr_kateb]

Actions taken to remedy inequality support equality.

Equal opportunity, not equal results.

 

[altblue]

Equal opportunity, not equal results.

I'm honestly not sure what you're aiming for here.

 

[libertyyne]

I respect your opinion a great deal, but I'm going to have to disagree with the overall fairness. You can't say a system is intrinsically fair if the playing field isn't level or all factors are fairly accounted for.

My parents were born here but can only really communicate with simple sentences. Hell, my dad can't read the basic CNN articles I sent him. But assuredly my 127 CARS, which brought down my overall, is inferior to that of a wealthy applicant with a 128?? That's the information you'd glean without accounting for SES in the system

I worked hard and smart to overpower wealthy students at my UG to score well above average. But am I equal to other applicants from stimulating households who have a 3.7+ and ample AP background??? I didn't know the damn difference between DNA and RNA before college lol

If Stanford can get giddy with joy because some applicant was lucky enough to publish repeatedly under a productive PI, I think schools can start considering the contextual factors behind an application. That is what I consider a fair evaluation

Do i mean that poor kids should be getting into Wash U en masse with a 3.6 513? No, byt the strength of an applicant is best appraised with that information. That's the sort of stuff that keeps the system fair.

seems like you scored well on your mcat. Do you think all of that was just hard work or do you think part of that was intrinsic intelligence? What if I told you there were people who spent just as many hours as you in preparation and were unable to crack a 500? Why are we being unfair to the people who were born with lower intrinsic intelligence ? Life is intrinsically unfair. Rich people tend to score better on standardized tests, tend to go to better UGs, tend have more connections. Medical school admissions is a meritocracy, and it can only function within our the boundaries of our society. You are acting like medical schools dont take SES background into account at all, they do.

Just as an aside, I was also an immigrant in my teens with parents who spoke no English. I ended up with a 131 on cars.

 

[dr_kateb]

I'm honestly not sure what you're aiming for here.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to be successful. Not everyone will get the success they work for. It’s not a medical school’s or any institution’s responsibility to make sure people that may be underprivilidged to become successful.

 

[altblue]

seems like you scored well on your mcat. Do you think all of that was just hard work or do you think part of that was intrinsic intelligence? What if I told you there were people who spent just as many hours as you in preparation and were unable to crack a 500? Why are we being unfair to the people who were born with lower intrinsic intelligence ? Life is intrinsically unfair. Rich people tend to score better on standardized tests, tend to go to better UGs, tend have more connections. Medical school admissions is a meritocracy, and it can only function within our the boundaries of our society. You are acting like medical schools dont take SES background into account at all, they do.

Okay, I suppose we were on a different wave length. I thought you were opposed to taking SES background in account.

Yeah I did well on the MCAT by most standards and decently so by SDN standards lol. Some people lack the intellectual horsepower or willpower to do well on the exam, sure, and it does favor the wealthy, I agree.

I think we see eye to eye more than I had thought though. All I mean to say is that in a fair, "true" meritocracy one's accomplishments will be interpreted in light of important contextual info, like SES or heavy work demands, to understand their abilities.

 

[getdown]

OK. So let me ask everyone this. Everybody is treating the kid with rich parents (and arguably having more advantages) as he may not deserve to actually be in school. But in this country, isn’t that what we all work for? I am an immigrant. I would hope that I worked my tail off so that if my kids want to be in medical school, they don’t have to struggle as much as I did. I will do everything in my power to help them along. Provided they have similar grades and aren’t just coasting in with crappy scores (which doesn’t seem like it happens much), isn’t that the whole point of us trying to make a better life for our children in this country? I became a division chief not just for my own personal satisfaction...but also so that one day, my phone call might make the difference for someone I care about, because I never had such a phone call for myself. If I do it for my medical students, do people really expect me not to do it for my own child?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I agree completely. I'm an immigrant too and of course you wanna make life easier for your kid. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

OK. So let me ask everyone this. Everybody is treating the kid with rich parents (and arguably having more advantages) as he may not deserve to actually be in school. But in this country, isn’t that what we all work for? I am an immigrant. I would hope that I worked my tail off so that if my kids want to be in medical school, they don’t have to struggle as much as I did. I will do everything in my power to help them along. Provided they have similar grades and aren’t just coasting in with crappy scores (which doesn’t seem like it happens much), isn’t that the whole point of us trying to make a better life for our children in this country? I became a division chief not just for my own personal satisfaction...but also so that one day, my phone call might make the difference for someone I care about, because I never had such a phone call for myself. If I do it for my medical students, do people really expect me not to do it for my own child?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Personally, I said explicitly that wealthy applicants shouldn’t be penalized nor do they deserve anything less if they have met the metrics. That doesn’t mean it can’t be imbalanced to their favor.

 

[altblue]

Everyone deserves the opportunity to be successful. Not everyone will get the success they work for. It’s not a medical school’s or any institution’s responsibility to make sure people that may be underprivilidged to become successful.

That oversimplifies what I'd been saying.

I don't expect every poor individual to be successful in gaining entry, and the onus isn't on medical schools to accept students solely because the system treated them unfairly.

But do I think med schools should have a keen eye for disadvantaged applicants and account for it in admissions? I do.

Food for thought....Wouldn't there be additonal value in having physicians from a diverse set of economic backgrounds too? To treat patients who are hardly homogenous in wealth? These questions alone shouldn't compel schools to admit the appropriate students. They are however worthwhile considerations

 

[dr_kateb]

That oversimplifies what I'd been saying.

I don't expect every poor individual to be successful in gaining entry, and the onus isn't on medical schools to accept students solely because the system treated them unfairly.

But do I think med schools should have a keen eye for disadvantaged applicants and account for it in admissions? I do.

Food for thought....Wouldn't there be additonal value in having physicians from a diverse set of economic backgrounds too? To treat patients who are hardly homogenous in wealth? These questions alone shouldn't compel schools to admit the appropriate students. They are however worthwhile considerations

You’re right. In fact, when I was a volunteer, I always made sure to ask the patients I discharged how much money they made in a year. If they made less than what my parents make then I treat them like ****.

 

[altblue]

You’re right. In fact, when I was a volunteer, I always made sure to ask the patients I discharged how much money they made in a year. If they made less than what my parents make then I treat them like ****.

🙄

 

[Goatcappy32]

Come down from your high horse. I don't need your top 5 institution. Doesn't make you or anyone else a better clinician.

You're happy I'm moving away from clinical medicine? Hmm let's see. 70% of clinical decisions depend on pathology and laboratory services. Radiology is even more, maybe 80%.

Please leave the actual medicine to us. We'll let you know what to do next. You can carry on with your glorified social work and medication micromanagement.

You are sad and pathetic. I hope you enjoy the satisfaction you’re getting behind your keyboard. Make a real point and bring your ridiculous statements to a doctor at your institution or a member of your school’s adcom.

I congratulate you from moving away from clinical medicine. You saved a bunch of patients and potential colleagues a headache.