Why is AA (and the like) based on race? (no bait thread)

[Eaglefan]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Actual curiosity here. I understand the need for these programs, but of the black "pre-meds" I know, I wouldn't consider any really disadvantaged. One has a physician father and the other is pretty rich (don't know occupations). they both attend my uni with very large scholarships even though their stats/EC's are on par with mine and others white people I know.

So my question is really why does being black garner affirmative action regardless of the individual's upbringing? Why is this not based more on parents income level, education, etc?

No hate, no racist. Just not sure if I understand the process

 

[confuzus]

I think, at least a little bit, that med schools do this for selfish reasons: to be able to say how diverse the school is.

And when people look at diversity, they, first and foremost, notice race, and not family background.

 

[d12]

I'll take a shot at this one, and if I'm incorrect in my understanding please correct me.

First, if you are economically disadvanted you can apply as such. Second, the "URM advantage" is a way of making the medical landscape more closely resemble the demographics of the population in the United States. The fact is that the percentage of doctors that are African American/Hispanic/Native American is much lower than the percentage of people that are African American/Hispanic/Native American. At the other side of the spectrum, the percentage of doctors that are white/asian is much higher than the percentage of people that are white/asian. Some people of some cultures/ethnicities feel more comfortable being treated by somebody from a familiar background. Physicians want their patients to feel comfrotable to improve care, thus, medical schools are trying to make the #s more congruent.

 

[LizzyM]

Let's go back in history to the 1950s... A black student with the qualifications to be admitted to medical school in Alabama could not go to medical school in Alamama... the state would refer them out to Howard, Meharry or another "black" medical school. Now, we know that it wrong-headed and discriminatory and wrong.

So, schools have to prove that they are not discriminating against certain protected classes of people (including women) by reporting to the powers that be (called LCME, an accreditation body consisting of people from AMA and AAMC) that they have this many women, this many blacks, this many hispanics, and so forth.

Affirmative action goes a bit further, in theory, by going out and telling people in those protected classes that they are welcome at schools that they were previously not welcome to attend. It takes a positive action rather than being passive in saying, "if they apply we'll give them a look".

Schools are under some pressure to have some students who are URM. They will choose people they think can pass the classes and graduate and the floor is rather low. On the other hand, schools want to take people with high stats because those folks do well, match well, and bring glory to the institution. So the people with high stats get recruited and people who will fill another need get recruited and some people who are not in the top 40% of their peer group get pissed.

Beyond making up for past discrimination, LCME believes that the education of all students benefits from having URM students in small group learning environments and in clinical settings. It also believes that the American public benefits by having physicians that patients can identify with just as US presidents have worked over the past 30+ years to have Supreme Court Justices that are more representative of the US population than 9 white men.

 

[Narmerguy]

I can temporarily no longer refer to my signature, but the number of times this topic has been covered probably exceeds modern computational boundaries. I assure you searching "AA" or "URM" or anything remotely race-related will bring you a deluge of threads so sufficiently informative they will answer any question you could possibly have. Realistically, even one of the 40-page threads would be sufficient.

 

[kgpremed11]

Actual curiosity here. I understand the need for these programs, but of the black "pre-meds" I know, I wouldn't consider any really disadvantaged. One has a physician father and the other is pretty rich (don't know occupations). they both attend my uni with very large scholarships even though their stats/EC's are on par with mine and others white people I know.

So my question is really why does being black garner affirmative action regardless of the individual's upbringing? Why is this not based more on parents income level, education, etc?

No hate, no racist. Just not sure if I understand the process

You know a couple of black pre-meds that are not disadvantaged, the overwhelming majority are.

 

[Lexdiamondz]

Actual curiosity here. I understand the need for these programs, but of the black "pre-meds" I know, I wouldn't consider any really disadvantaged. One has a physician father and the other is pretty rich (don't know occupations). they both attend my uni with very large scholarships even though their stats/EC's are on par with mine and others white people I know.

So my question is really why does being black garner affirmative action regardless of the individual's upbringing? Why is this not based more on parents income level, education, etc?

No hate, no racist. Just not sure if I understand the process

1. How do you know the scholarships they received were due to Affirmative Action? Most scholarships have nothing to do with AA but are funded by philanthropists who see a need to increase the number of educated Black people out there, and these scholarships exist for people of EVERY ethnicity.

2. If their stats/EC's are on par with yours, then what's the issue? I could understand if they were grossly under-qualified by comparison, but if they measure up then what's your beef?

3. I agree that AA should be based more on income level and socioeconomic background...and in many ways it is. Hence why AMCAS asks you questions regarding income, parent occupation & education, etc.

4. AA is not solely based on race. In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of AA policies have been White women.

 

[MedPR]

In

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[Neuronette]

I personally think that AA should be based on socioeconomic status.

 

[Erakis]

...here we go...

 

[VictorAlpha]

in

 

[deleted329605]

Slightly off topic, but is there data comparing step 1,2 and 3 scores by race?

 

[metview]

Actual curiosity here. I understand the need for these programs, but of the black "pre-meds" I know, I wouldn't consider any really disadvantaged. One has a physician father and the other is pretty rich (don't know occupations). they both attend my uni with very large scholarships even though their stats/EC's are on par with mine and others white people I know.

So my question is really why does being black garner affirmative action regardless of the individual's upbringing? Why is this not based more on parents income level, education, etc?

No hate, no racist. Just not sure if I understand the process

Because medical schools want to be considered diverse (stupid reason); they do this by accepting applicants of various races regardless of stats.

 

[MedPR]

Because medical schools want to be considered diverse (stupid reason); they do this by accepting applicants of various races regardless of stats.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[VictorAlpha]

Slightly off topic, but is there data comparing step 1,2 and 3 scores by race?

...oh.... this thread is ripe

 

[amad01]

It's white people saying sorry for things they had nothing to do with... to people who weren't ever really victims....

Paying for grandpa's mistakes from well over 50+ years ago....

 

[MedPR]

It's white people saying sorry for things they had nothing to do with... to people who weren't ever really victims....

Paying for grandpa's mistakes from well over 50+ years ago....

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[Erakis]

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[1stmeds]

Actual curiosity here. I understand the need for these programs, but of the black "pre-meds" I know, I wouldn't consider any really disadvantaged. One has a physician father and the other is pretty rich (don't know occupations). they both attend my uni with very large scholarships even though their stats/EC's are on par with mine and others white people I know.

So my question is really why does being black garner affirmative action regardless of the individual's upbringing? Why is this not based more on parents income level, education, etc?

No hate, no racist. Just not sure if I understand the process

The point is to proactively create a diversity that is more accurately representative of the US populace, address existing and pernicious disadvantages faced by particular marginalized groups, and break-down, and reverse, historically proactive attempts at segregation based on racial prejudice. Its not solely directed at African Americans, but other under-represented minorities (URM) as well.

I believe that, on the whole, diversity is a benefit because it forces all of us to confront our own stereotypes and misconceptions about others; obtain a deeper understanding of life in America; expand the ways we think about and find solutions for problems; and as regarding medical care, better address the medical needs of the country, locally and nationally.

However, class, as in socioeconomic status, is a more accurate indicator of disadvantage and inequality, than is race, ethnicity, or sex. The most effective affirmative action policy would consider all such factors.

 

[chemsmith]

Let's go back in history to the 1950s... A black student with the qualifications to be admitted to medical school in Alabama could not go to medical school in Alamama... the state would refer them out to Howard, Meharry or another "black" medical school. Now, we know that it wrong-headed and discriminatory and wrong.

So, schools have to prove that they are not discriminating against certain protected classes of people (including women) by reporting to the powers that be (called LCME, an accreditation body consisting of people from AMA and AAMC) that they have this many women, this many blacks, this many hispanics, and so forth.

Affirmative action goes a bit further, in theory, by going out and telling people in those protected classes that they are welcome at schools that they were previously not welcome to attend. It takes a positive action rather than being passive in saying, "if they apply we'll give them a look".

Schools are under some pressure to have some students who are URM. They will choose people they think can pass the classes and graduate and the floor is rather low. On the other hand, schools want to take people with high stats because those folks do well, match well, and bring glory to the institution. So the people with high stats get recruited and people who will fill another need get recruited and some people who are not in the top 40% of their peer group get pissed.

Beyond making up for past discrimination, LCME believes that the education of all students benefits from having URM students in small group learning environments and in clinical settings. It also believes that the American public benefits by having physicians that patients can identify with just as US presidents have worked over the past 30+ years to have Supreme Court Justices that are more representative of the US population than 9 white men.

It seems to me that this is the major reason. If you read the AAMC briefing for Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a great effort is made to emphasize the difference in affirmative action policies between undergraduate admissions and medical school admissions. Undergraduate AA takes into account the above reasons (past discrimination etc.) However, the AAMC argues that regardless of the final outcome of the Fisher case, AA in medical school admissions is necessary. The distinction, they argue, is that AA in undergraduate admissions is concerned with the welfare of the individual applicant, whereas AA in medical school admissions is concerned (despite what many ill-informed SDNers like to think) with the impact of the student body makeup on the welfare of patients.

 

[La Presse]

In.

/subscribed

 

[typicalindian]

 

[Erakis]

It seems to me that this is the major reason. If you read the AAMC briefing for Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a great effort is made to emphasize the difference in affirmative action policies between undergraduate admissions and medical school admissions. Undergraduate AA takes into account the above reasons (past discrimination etc.) However, the AAMC argues that regardless of the final outcome of the Fisher case, AA in medical school admissions is necessary. The distinction, they argue, is that AA in undergraduate admissions is concerned with the welfare of the individual applicant, whereas AA in medical school admissions is concerned (despite what many ill-informed SDNers like to think) with the impact of the student body makeup on the welfare of patients.

I had not heard about AAMCs stance regarding the outcome of the Fisher case before. Are they basing this on concordance theory?

 

[911 Turbo]

In on AA thread

 

[Ellie Arroway]

A lot of schools do a holistic review to determine whether someone qualifies as a "diversity" candidate that takes into account a lot of different factors. I imagine that I register as a diversity applicant with some schools, but it's not based on race. It's based on social, economic, and family history factors.

Also, I think it's kind of annoying that people always assume that "diversity" candidates are always underqualified or have low stats. If schools can recruit minority candidates with rockstar stats, they do.

 

[Konfidence]

*runs to concession stand*
*adds more cheese to nachos*

 

[911 Turbo]

*runs to concession stand*
*adds more cheese to nachos*

Dude that's popcorn





Or are we talking about fake nachos

 

[HughMyron]

Inb4 "dey took our jaerbs"

 

[Konfidence]

Dude that's popcorn





Or are we talking about fake nachos

Everyone else had popcorn, so I took nachos.

Just trying to be an individual.

 

[MedPR]

*runs to concession stand*
*adds more cheese to nachos*

Lol what

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[Konfidence]

A lot of schools do a holistic review to determine whether someone qualifies as a "diversity" candidate that takes into account a lot of different factors. I imagine that I register as a diversity applicant with some schools, but it's not based on race. It's based on social, economic, and family history factors.

Also, I think it's kind of annoying that people always assume that "diversity" candidates are always underqualified or have low stats. If schools can recruit minority candidates with rockstar stats, they do.

 

[113]

I've been silently lurking waiting for an oppotunity to pounce, but this conversation is not taking the course I expected it to. My hands are quivering. I can't take it anymore.

Ahhhhh. Much better. Feelsgoodman.jpg

 

[113]

For srs tho...

A lot of minority students come from underserved communities. Many of these students, even the ones that are not socioeconomically disadvantaged, are interested in going back to serve these same communities with a significant shortage of doctors. Non-minority students are typically not interested in working in these environments, and even actively avoid them. That's the argument that I've commonly heard. And I'm inclined to believe it.

 

[MedPR]

For srs tho...

A lot of minority students come from underserved communities. Many of these students, and even the ones that are not socioeconomically disadvantaged, are interested in going back to serve those same underserved minority communities. Non-minority students are typically not interested in working in these environments, and even actively avoid them. That's the argument that I've commonly heard. And I'm inclined to believe it.

Gangsters always give back to the ghetto.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[113]

Gangsters always give back to the ghetto.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

**** where were you 5 minutes ago? I could've used my gif for this instead of prematurely blowing my load.

 

[Eaglefan]

Lol didn't mean for this thread to take off into people securing spots. And I did search a bit, possibly not as much as I could have.

I've seen where it's been said that black (and other URMs) are more likely to be disadvantaged than other groups. But there's plenty of poor white people whose parents didn't go to college. I was wondering why they don't get AA help. I'm aware you can say disadvantaged on AMCAS even if you're white, but I don't remember there beings something similar for undergrad admissions.

A system, blind of race, that uses SES and family education/history to pick would be better, or so I'd think?

 

[amazing tekkers]

URM and ORM should mean something right.

 

[487806]

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Slightly off topic, but is there data comparing step 1,2 and 3 scores by race?

zwander returns!

In on AA thread

Also in!

Dude that's popcorn





Or are we talking about fake nachos

Nachos! 😍

 

[MedPR]

I wonder where zoner has been.

Zwander and DrBumblebee remind me of him
Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[487806]

I wonder where zoner has been.

Zwander and DrBumblebee remind me of him
Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Who is da zoner?

If only noworkhistory were to return...

 

[MedPR]

Who is da zoner?

If only noworkhistory were to return...

The guy asking why he didn't get into some DO schools even though his stats are way higher than average.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[MedPR]

You do realize that more ORMs with lower stats are accepted than URMs with lower stats, right? Not only that, but the URMs with lower stats that get accepted usually end up at one of the Historically Black Colleges. You wouldn't be far off to assume that many of those ORMs with low stats come from disadvantaged background. So I think they are (disadvantaged ORMs) getting more help in the admissions process, it's just something that gets trumped every time by those complaining about the URMs that occupy 5 seats in a class of 120...

Fo sho. Whitetears.jpg

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[as1212559]

oh chit... in

 

[Arbor Vitae]

 

[lobo.solo]

Lol didn't mean for this thread to take off into people securing spots. And I did search a bit, possibly not as much as I could have.

I've seen where it's been said that black (and other URMs) are more likely to be disadvantaged than other groups. But there's plenty of poor white people whose parents didn't go to college. I was wondering why they don't get AA help. I'm aware you can say disadvantaged on AMCAS even if you're white, but I don't remember there beings something similar for undergrad admissions.

A system, blind of race, that uses SES and family education/history to pick would be better, or so I'd think?

Since the aamc made the whole definition of URM then it ought to be important in the greater scheme of things. Aslo...

[YOUTUBE]eBb5TgOXgNY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[starfar]

You do realize that more ORMs with lower stats are accepted than URMs with lower stats, right? Not only that, but the URMs with lower stats that get accepted usually end up at one of the Historically Black Colleges. You wouldn't be far off to assume that many of those ORMs with low stats come from disadvantaged background. So I think they are (disadvantaged ORMs) getting more help in the admissions process, it's just something that gets trumped every time by those complaining about the URMs that occupy 5 seats in a class of 120...

 

[VictorAlpha]

 

[Erakis]

Since the aamc made the whole definition of URM then it ought to be important in the greater scheme of things. Aslo...

[YOUTUBE]eBb5TgOXgNY[/YOUTUBE]

This video parodies itself in a counterproductive way

 

[Lexdiamondz]

Lol didn't mean for this thread to take off into people securing spots. And I did search a bit, possibly not as much as I could have.

I've seen where it's been said that black (and other URMs) are more likely to be disadvantaged than other groups. But there's plenty of poor white people whose parents didn't go to college. I was wondering why they don't get AA help. I'm aware you can say disadvantaged on AMCAS even if you're white, but I don't remember there beings something similar for undergrad admissions.

A system, blind of race, that uses SES and family education/history to pick would be better, or so I'd think?

They don't let you make a disadvantaged statement but they use your income information, parental contribution, and parental education & employment to determine whether or not you're a diversity candidate.

 

[lobo.solo]

This video parodies itself in a counterproductive way

How so?