Med school admissions biased?

[efle]

I wish these schools released stats on how many of the "diversity" admits come to them through elite boarding/private schools so we could call them out on it. I think the programs that get kids into these elite high schools are doing great things, but 1) it shows how much elite hs education/advising matters and 2) prevents these UGs from having to take responsibility for getting kids up to an elite academic level since a boarding school has already been doing that for them. Let's them go about saying, "Look how well our super disadvantaged students are doing-anyone can succeed here!" without actually having to acknowledge/work at solving the educational disparities they talk/write papers about.

Reminds me of this controversial phenomenon (quote from NYT many years back):

At the most recent reunion of Harvard University's black alumni, there was lots of pleased talk about the increase in the number of black students at Harvard.

But the celebratory mood was broken in one forum, when some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students were.

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them -- perhaps as many as two-thirds -- were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.

Is the goal only to bring in diversity in SES and race, or is it possible to bring that diversity in a less meaningful way? Difficult stuff

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deev04]

Reminds me of this controversial phenomenon (quote from NYT many years back):

At the most recent reunion of Harvard University's black alumni, there was lots of pleased talk about the increase in the number of black students at Harvard.

But the celebratory mood was broken in one forum, when some speakers brought up the thorny issue of exactly who those black students were.

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them -- perhaps as many as two-thirds -- were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.

Yeah, not dissimilar to breakdown of black students at medical schools.

Is the goal only to bring in diversity in SES and race, or is it possible to bring that diversity in a less meaningful way? Difficult stuff

I think the goal (both stated and intended) is to approach admissions holistically and integrate SES and race. People often want to oversimplify the process, but I don't think ad coms are looking at a white advantaged applicant in the same way as a white disadvantaged applicant, or at a black applicant from an upper class West African family in the same way as an AA from the lowest SES bracket. I also don't think they're making direct comparisons (i.e. determining the relative disadvantage of white low SES applicant vs black upper SES applicant) and are more likely using the race/SES to contextualize each individual applicant and think about the respective diversity each applicant would offer their class.

But these schools know that their race/ethnicity percentages are going to be made into neat little bar graphs, so when presented with the opportunity to boost their diversity stats with students requiring less aid and likely less academic support (due to elite hs or advantaged backgrounds), I think they find it hard to not deviate from their mission of integrated race/SES admissions.

 

[efle]

But these schools know that their race/ethnicity percentages are going to be made into neat little bar graphs, so when presented with the opportunity to boost that diversity stats with students requiring less aid and likely less academic support (due to elite hs or advantaged backgrounds), I think they find it hard to not deviate from their mission of integrated race/SES admissions.

They have a pretty easy and solid defense they can use, too. Since the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is not to be used as reparation, but rather protects a university's ability to maintain a diverse class, they can simply say that the wealthier, more recent immigrants still bring the perspective of membership in that minority.

In fact that's the defense brought up by Columbia's president later in the article:

[O]thers say there is no reason to take the ancestry of black students into account.

''I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education,'' said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. ''The issue is not origin, but social practices. It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action.''

Hard to say he's wrong.

So maybe a similar argument can be made for SES - so what if Harvard is mostly being fed poor kids who were already rescued/boosted by elite highschools? Isn't the point just that they get rescued and receive that Harvard education and go out into the world to be successful? Who cares that the pipeline starts up earlier, it is still true that they bring the perspective of someone who grew up poor to the class and it is still moving people up the SES ladder!

 

[deev04]

They have a pretty easy and solid defense they can use, too. Since the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is not to be used as reparation, but rather protects a university's ability to maintain a diverse class, they can simply say that the wealthier, more recent immigrants still bring the perspective of membership in that minority.

In fact that's the defense brought up by Columbia's president later in the article:

[O]thers say there is no reason to take the ancestry of black students into account.

''I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education,'' said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. ''The issue is not origin, but social practices. It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action.''

Hard to say he's wrong.

Representation is important and racial/ethnic disparities persist across socioeconomic lines, so contextualizing minority students' experience relative to their race is important and necessary. A black student from an upper class family who goes to an elite undergrad will still experience bias and racism that is unique to being a member of a minority group. So I agree that "social practices" inform racial experience.

But these schools preach about racial/educational disparities and the particular challenges certain communities face. They talk about wanting to increase the representation of people from the lowest SES (include minorities) and launch programs and offices to support their efforts. It's not that I think it's a bad thing to admit so many minority students who come from advantaged background, so much as I think it obscures the limited success of these schools in achieving their stated missions of increasing both SES and racial diversity.

So maybe a similar argument can be made for SES - so what if Harvard is mostly being fed poor kids who were already rescued/boosted by elite highschools? Isn't the point just that they get rescued and receive that Harvard education and go out into the world to be successful? Who cares that the pipeline starts up earlier, it is still true that they bring the perspective of someone who grew up poor to the class and it is still moving people up the SES ladder!

Reposting part of a previous response, but I do think the programs that get kids into these elite high schools are doing great things. You could make the argument that the educational disparities are so great for this population, that giving these students access to elite high schools is the only way to adequately prepare them for success at the next level. My problem is more that by choosing the most well-groomed students with elite college prep, UGs can turn around and use this population to say, "Look how well our super disadvantaged students are doing-anyone can succeed here!" without actually having to acknowledge/work at solving the educational disparities they talk/write papers about. This leaves these UGs with less of an incentive to put programs in place to help the other educationally disadvantaged students that they admit.

I get that's it hard and messy and complicated and there aren't easy answers. I walk out of lectures/classes energized and snapping my little heart out only to then be demoralized by the complexities of these problems. But, if a school is going to make diversity a core part of its mission, it needs to take ownership over the enormous challenges many students face in trying to succeed in environments full of people standing on step stools. Getting to the door is already a rigged system. These schools could at least start with owning their commitment to the students they let through the door.

 

[aldol16]

I find it hard to believe all the same peeps would get in either round. Harvard's early admit rate as 18.4% compared to 3.8% regular, a 5x increase! It makes sense for them to have a higher rate, too, because the yield is going to be higher - either locked in at 100% or at least a lot higher from being the person's choice of early action (you can still only apply to one early, right?). And seeing as some of these Ivies are filling 30-40%+ of their class from early admits I don't think it's just the athletes and VIPs.

The yield is higher for early action candidates - that is true. But again, that says nothing about applicants' having a better chance of getting in. From an alumni interviewer's perspective, I can tell you that I saw many unqualified applicants applying early simply because someone told them that it would be easier to get in that way. I did not give them favorable reviews. And the only one of my early interviewees that got in was a "hooked" applicant. It's similar for the other interviewers I know. Ask an admissions officer and they'll say the same thing. It's not easier to get in earlier - if you were admitted in the early round, you most likely would have been admitted in the regular round. The early action pool is also generally stronger than the regular pool (save the people with mediocre applications who apply because someone told them it would be easier).

By the way, do you know how many students are athletes at those schools? Around a fifth of the class are athletes. Even if only half of them got in through early action, that's 10% there. Another 10-20% are people with connections - either legacies (making up most of this group), children of university figures, children of donors, etc.

Maybe there is some data out there showing ED score profiles vs normal decision or something, but this is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that it doesn't help your odds!

You're perpetuating something that isn't true. If this is the first time, then you haven't talked to many people familiar with the admissions process at these schools.

 

[aldol16]

That doesn't mean there isn't an additional boost (although it's much smaller than are you would think based purely on acceptance rate). IIRC, Columbia has ~18% ED and 3% RD acceptance rate. It's not 6x easier to get into, but that doesn't mean there's not a boost. This is probably especially true a) for people with hooks (e.g. Penn says the only consider legacy status for ED apps) and b) full-pay students at need-aware colleges (e.g. Tufts, much higher acceptance rate ED), who are a guaranteed $68k.

1) The Early Action pool is generally much stronger than the regular decision pool (excluding the mediocre people who apply because somebody told them that even though they wouldn't get in the regular pool, their chances are higher if they apply early).

2) The standards are not lower just because you apply early. These universities are not letting in less qualified people just because they applied early. It's a seller's market and they have their pick of extremely well qualified candidates. Trust me, Harvard does not have yield problems. They blow everyone out of the water. In my day, they were a good 20 points higher in yield than the next closest school.

 

[cactusman]

1) The Early Action pool is generally much stronger than the regular decision pool (excluding the mediocre people who apply because somebody told them that even though they wouldn't get in the regular pool, their chances are higher if they apply early).

2) The standards are not lower just because you apply early. These universities are not letting in less qualified people just because they applied early. It's a seller's market and they have their pick of extremely well qualified candidates. Trust me, Harvard does not have yield problems. They blow everyone out of the water. In my day, they were a good 20 points higher in yield than the next closest school.

I believe Stanford has actually beaten Harvard in yield slightly for the last couple years.

Needing high stats, etc. to get in early (I'm mostly thinking ED, not EA, btw) does not mean chances aren't better in the early round.

 

[aldol16]

In fact that's the defense brought up by Columbia's president later in the article:

[O]thers say there is no reason to take the ancestry of black students into account.

''I don't think it should matter for purposes of admissions in higher education,'' said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who as president of the University of Michigan fiercely defended its use of affirmative action. ''The issue is not origin, but social practices. It matters in American society whether you grow up black or white. It's that differential effect that really is the basis for affirmative action.''

Hard to say he's wrong.

So maybe a similar argument can be made for SES - so what if Harvard is mostly being fed poor kids who were already rescued/boosted by elite highschools? Isn't the point just that they get rescued and receive that Harvard education and go out into the world to be successful? Who cares that the pipeline starts up earlier, it is still true that they bring the perspective of someone who grew up poor to the class and it is still moving people up the SES ladder!

I think it's quite easy to say he's wrong - bordering on idiotic, if he wasn't a constitutional scholar. The crux of his statement is that the social practices related to growing up black creates a differential which justifies use of affirmative action. Fine. But if you're going to craft a solution to the problem, why not address the problem directly? It's the differential that's the problem. So target those who have been affected by the differential. The most common "differential" that's used is social class/SES. Blacks generally fall into lower SES than whites and therefore are more likely to be disadvantaged in that regard. Use affirmative action for SES to remedy that. It's not necessary to go all the way back to the condition of being black. I'm sure the Obamas can do just fine without affirmative action.

 

[aldol16]

I believe Stanford has actually beaten Harvard in yield slightly for the last couple years.

Needing high stats, etc. to get in early (I'm mostly thinking ED, not EA, btw) does not mean chances aren't better in the early round.

Well, I'm old so I've been out of it

Could there be a marginal advantage to getting in earlier if you have high stats and a great all-around application? Sure. I'll concede that, marginal being the key term. If you have a great application, you might get in earlier easier because the school wants a better yield. If you go an quantify that marginal factor, it's going to be pretty small. Even my interviewees who were great on paper were deferred into the regular round.

 

[efle]

I think it's quite easy to say he's wrong - bordering on idiotic, if he wasn't a constitutional scholar. The crux of his statement is that the social practices related to growing up black creates a differential which justifies use of affirmative action. Fine. But if you're going to craft a solution to the problem, why not address the problem directly? It's the differential that's the problem. So target those who have been affected by the differential. The most common "differential" that's used is social class/SES. Blacks generally fall into lower SES than whites and therefore are more likely to be disadvantaged in that regard. Use affirmative action for SES to remedy that. It's not necessary to go all the way back to the condition of being black. I'm sure the Obamas can do just fine without affirmative action.

Ooh it's not an issue I'm educated enough about to debate, but my knee jerk reaction is to say poor&black means something different for your American experience than poor alone does, and so just using lowered or raised SAT thresholds for income alone would not really target the differential

Not that I want to express support for the current system either. I'll have to dig up the studies if you're curious but last I read about it, affirmative action thus far has been causing minorities at elite schools to come in under prepared and overwhelmingly switch out of STEM fields where they are most needed, and so we would actually increase the rate of minority entry to STEM fields by better pairing applicants with colleges where they will be able to successfully stick with STEM majors.

 

[deev04]

I'll have to dig up the studies if you're curious but last I read about it, affirmative action thus far has been causing minorities at elite schools to come in under prepared and overwhelmingly switch out of STEM fields where they are most needed, and so we would actually increase the rate of minority entry to STEM fields by better pairing applicants with colleges where they will be able to successfully stick with STEM majors.

haha forgot where I even started in this thread but that was my first point.

Elite UG = Better chances at Elite Medical Schools, but for whom? Not for educationally disadvantaged students if they are dropping out of pre-med/science tracks because elite UGs are not investing in programs to support their academic success.

 

[cactusman]

Ooh it's not an issue I'm educated enough about to debate, but my knee jerk reaction is to say poor&black means something different for your American experience than poor alone does, and so just using lowered or raised SAT thresholds for income alone would not really target the differential

Not that I want to express support for the current system either. I'll have to dig up the studies if you're curious but last I read about it, affirmative action thus far has been causing minorities at elite schools to come in under prepared and overwhelmingly switch out of STEM fields where they are most needed, and so we would actually increase the rate of minority entry to STEM fields by better pairing applicants with colleges where they will be able to successfully stick with STEM majors.

Especially because of dialectic differences in many poor black communities.

 

[aldol16]

Ooh it's not an issue I'm educated enough about to debate, but my knee jerk reaction is to say poor&black means something different for your American experience than poor alone does, and so just using lowered or raised SAT thresholds for income alone would not really target the differential

Ah, fair enough. But in order for any legal remedy to be made, there has to be a measurable differential. You can't just say "being black is different so there." It has to be something like "being black causes X which directly leads to poorer outcomes that are independent of any other factor like SES." I don't think that exists. Is the black experience unique? Yes. Does it measurably disadvantage you? Maybe. But I don't know if it's been measured or if it exists.

Not that I want to express support for the current system either. I'll have to dig up the studies if you're curious but last I read about it, affirmative action thus far has been causing minorities at elite schools to come in under prepared and overwhelmingly switch out of STEM fields where they are most needed, and so we would actually increase the rate of minority entry to STEM fields by better pairing applicants with colleges where they will be able to successfully stick with STEM majors.

I'll stipulate. But this just means that affirmative action does not do its job. It gets people there but it doesn't get them a seat at the table.

 

[enchantediris]

Ah, fair enough. But in order for any legal remedy to be made, there has to be a measurable differential. You can't just say "being black is different so there." It has to be something like "being black causes X which directly leads to poorer outcomes that are independent of any other factor like SES." I don't think that exists. Is the black experience unique? Yes. Does it measurably disadvantage you? Maybe. But I don't know if it's been measured or if it exists.

One study I can think of that seeks to measure this is when a psychologist sent hundreds of resumes out to companies in Boston and Chicago. The resumes were identical except the name was either a white sounding name (e.g. Emily) or an African-American sounding name (e.g. Lakisha). Resumes with a white sounding name were 50% more likely to recieve a callback for interviews. This effect held across all occupations and industries.

Link to Paper: Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

 

[aldol16]

One study I can think of that seeks to measure this is when a psychologist sent hundreds of resumes out to companies in Boston and Chicago. The resumes were identical except the name was either a white sounding name (e.g. Emily) or an African-American sounding name (e.g. Lakisha). Resumes with a white sounding name were 50% more likely to recieve a callback for interviews.

Right, and the remedy would be to either mask names or have a quota for blacks at interviews. That's the direct remedy for the injury. In order for this differential to be proven in college admissions, you'd have to send identical college applications to admissions committees with the only difference being the name and whites would get in more over blacks. That would justify race-based admissions because there really is a differential with being "black."

 

[efle]

Ah, fair enough. But in order for any legal remedy to be made, there has to be a measurable differential. You can't just say "being black is different so there." It has to be something like "being black causes X which directly leads to poorer outcomes that are independent of any other factor like SES." I don't think that exists. Is the black experience unique? Yes. Does it measurably disadvantage you? Maybe. But I don't know if it's been measured or if it exists.



I'll stipulate. But this just means that affirmative action does not do its job. It gets people there but it doesn't get them a seat at the table.

I think according to the courts, it's enough to say being black is different, and being around different people is important for your college experience.

I guess it depends what your stated goal of affirm action is - are we worried about having enough minority engineers, or enough minority graduates of MIT? Or is there a way to make the two less at odds with each other? I've seen many different answers

 

[deev04]

I guess it depends what your stated goal of affirm action is - are we worried about having enough minority engineers, or enough minority graduates of MIT? Or is there a way to make the two less at odds with each other?

I think investing in programs meant to specifically address the gaps in pre-matriculation education is a start. Poor, educationally disadvantaged students can succeed in elite academic environments, they just often don't due to lack of support and the disparities in pre-UG preparation. UGs should be focused not just on getting disadvantaged students a seat at the table, but providing them the resources to remain at the table. Many schools seem to be focusing more on this and starting to implement programs aimed at providing the extra support necessary for these students to be successful across all fields (including STEM).

admitting poor minority students doesn't have to mean accepting that less will end up successful engineers

 

[efle]

I think investing in programs meant to specifically address the gaps in pre-matriculation education quality is a start. Poor, educationally disadvantaged students can succeed in elite academic environments, they just often don't due to lack of support and the disparities in pre-UG preparation. UGs should be focused not just on getting disadvantaged students a seat at the table, but providing them the resources to remain at the table. Many schools seem to be focusing more on this and starting to implement programs aimed at providing the extra support necessary for these students to be successful across all fields (including STEM).

admitting poor minority students doesn't have to mean accepting that less will end up successful engineers

So what is there to actually be done? There is already an academic support center, tons of office hours, lectures available online for repeated viewing, lots of practice exams and problem sets and whatnot centrally available on blackboard. What are you supposed to do with a freshly arrived student that has no AP science background and test scores a standard dev. below mean but who has to take curved gen chem exams starting in a few weeks?

 

[enchantediris]

Right, and the remedy would be to either mask names or have a quota for blacks at interviews. That's the direct remedy for the injury. In order for this differential to be proven in college admissions, you'd have to send identical college applications to admissions committees with the only difference being the name and whites would get in more over blacks. That would justify race-based admissions because there really is a differential with being "black."

I think trying to make a "direct remedy" like masking names on applications is deliberately avoiding the bigger picture issue of the implicit bias that many black (and other minority) people face. As the study I linked showed, just having an African-American sounding name puts you at a significant disadvantage for something as simple as applying for a job.

Another study has shown that African-American preschoolers are more likely to be suspended from school for similar infractions as their white counterparts. And it has been shown that kids who are suspended or expelled from school are more likely to drop out of school, and those who drop out of school are more likely to be incarcerated. Even Mayor de Blasio, a very powerful man in NYC politics, has talked about how his son (who is biracial) has to be careful around policemen.

I get that the present Affirmative Action system is probably not the best way to address these inequalities, but I think we should also acknowledge that there are very real implicit biases that exist against black people -- regardless of SES. These biases have a significant effect along the lifecourse of a person, not just when they're applying to college or medical school.

 

[deev04]

So what is there to actually be done? There is already an academic support center, tons of office hours, lectures available online for repeated viewing, lots of practice exams and problem sets and whatnot centrally available on blackboard. What are you supposed to do with a freshly arrived student that has no AP science background and test scores a standard dev. below mean but who has to take curved gen chem exams starting in a few weeks?

I think pre-matriculation summer programs are a fantastic idea. Yale has a program like this called Freshman Scholars at Yale. Allows students to adjust to college level material while getting targeted academic (and pre-professional) advice and building skills and support systems that will be crucial to early success.

I know for pre-med prereqs, Harvard has two versions of Gen Chem. One is essentially AP Chemistry and the other is still General Chemistry I, but moves at a faster pace, assumes prior experience and integrates certain bio concepts. Students decide which one they want to take (i.e. students with AP Chem could take the "less challenging" version). They both fulfill the exact same requirements (for majors and pre-med), so students needing extra preparation can take what is still a challenging chem class (probably more akin to Gen Chem at many other colleges) without falling behind their peers or being overwhelmed.

I think offering fundamental courses that account for the disparities in educational backgrounds is a great idea. Students would still reach the advanced courses at the same time, but it would give students who need to strengthen their foundation the opportunity to do so without feeling too overwhelmed (and risking they leave STEM/pre-med).

 

[efle]

I'd love to see some data on whether a 5-week crash course like that actually moves participants with low preparedness up to normal survival rates. My initial reaction is skepticism that you can actually fix years and years worth of lower prep and scores. Glad someone is trying at least

I know for pre-med prereqs, Harvard has two version of Gen Chem. One is essentially AP Chemistry and the other is still General Chemistry I, but moves at a faster pace, assumes prior experience and integrates certain molecular/cell bio concepts. Students decided which one they want to take (i.e. students with AP Chem could take the "less challenging" version). They both fulfill the exact same requirements (for majors and pre-med), so students needing extra preparation can take what is still a challenging chem class (probably more akin to Gen Chem at many other colleges) without falling behind their peers or being overwhelmed.

I think offering fundamental courses that account for the disparities in educational backgrounds is a great idea. Students would still reach the advanced courses at the same time, but it would give students who need to strengthen their foundation the opportunity to do so without feeling too overwhelmed (and risking they leave STEM/pre-med).

I'm shocked any premeds choose the harder one, lol! Having easier versions of classes would certainly fix the issue of under-preparedness...but cause a whole new slew of issues

 

[deev04]

I'm shocked any premeds choose the harder one, lol! Having easier versions of classes would certainly fix the issue of under-preparedness...but cause a whole new slew of issues

word on the street is the harder class is significantly larger with way more premeds. Many students come in freshman year with a poor sense of what it takes to get to med school and assume that since they were great in high school, the highest level class is obviously for them, so this actually makes sense to me

 

[deev04]

I'd love to see some data on whether a 5-week crash course like that actually moves participants with low preparedness up to normal survival rates. My initial reaction is skepticism that you can actually fix years and years worth of lower prep and scores.

agree, and there's no way five weeks is going to solve gaping knowledge holes. But working on fundamental skills like writing can be a big help. Hearing targeted academic advice that takes into account their relative lack of preparedness can also be valuable, since so much of the general advice they'll hear (and advice from peers) will be skewed towards people from well-prepared backgrounds. The adjustment to college is tough for a lot of people, so the value of knowing about and feeling comfortable accessing academic resources or being able to reach out to a community of peers in a similar situation from day 1 could make a big difference. People often give up or start struggling because problems are caught too late. Identifying potential problems and anticipating the need for resources might be a big part of the battle.

 

[aldol16]

I think according to the courts, it's enough to say being black is different, and being around different people is important for your college experience.

You're entirely right. That's the (basically criminal) decision issued by the Supreme Court in Fisher. But given that the decision was issued 1) during the highly unusual time when there was an 8-member court and 2) the current composition of the court, I think if a similar issue comes before the justices and they agree to hear it, it may well go the other way. Kennedy would be the swing vote again and of course he could very well vote the same way again. But keep in mind that Kennedy's opinion specifically pointed out that admissions policies should be continuously reviewed to make sure that race, as used in admissions, plays no greater role than it should in ensuring diversity. There's more and more data every day that says SES is a much more potent social determinant than race is, although race does play some role.

I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion. Schools' definitions of diversity are too vague. Does adding a black student improve diversity of perspective? Sure. So does adding a neo-Nazi.

 

[cactusman]

Relevant to the UG wealth discussion:

I'm currently listening to someone describe their experience going to high school with the children of Hugh Jackman and David Bowie.

 

[DrHart]

To me, it sounds like this argument is starting to boil down to the root of the problem? How to better prepare disadvantaged students for college, especially STEM majors. Not just how to help them stay in college, or stay in their science major, but how to prepare them to hit the ground running... like the rest of the upper-middle class white HS grads who come in with PSEO credit and a plethora of passed AP exams.

I say go deeper than a summer pre-matriculation program. Maybe increase funding and resources for high school programs that target these kids, keep them engaged during the school year and summer.

 

[Sukata34]

are there any top schools that have really high acceptance rates for medical careers other than traditional medical school?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

So what is there to actually be done? There is already an academic support center, tons of office hours, lectures available online for repeated viewing, lots of practice exams and problem sets and whatnot centrally available on blackboard. What are you supposed to do with a freshly arrived student that has no AP science background and test scores a standard dev. below mean but who has to take curved gen chem exams starting in a few weeks?

One solution is to have them defer science courses for a year. Essentially, they can use freshman year and summer workshops to hone their study skills.

 

[Lucca]

One solution is to have them defer science courses for a year. Essentially, they can use freshman year and summer workshops to hone their study skills.

better yet, get rid of freshman year GPA, for all students

 

[cactusman]

better yet, get rid of freshman year GPA, for all students

Most of me says this is a good idea, but also a large portion reminds myself that I have a high first-year GPA and, based on high school, I historically trend downwards.

 

[efle]

better yet, get rid of freshman year GPA, for all students

Doesn't MIT do pass/fail first year, and I think Harvey Mudd does too. Sounds like a good system to me for mental health reasons, but I'd still need to see some data to believe survival doesn't drop when the curved sophomore and junior classes hit

 

[cactusman]

Doesn't MIT do pass/fail first year, and I think Harvey Mudd does too. Sounds like a good system to me for mental health reasons, but I'd still need to see some data to believe survival doesn't drop when the curved sophomore and junior classes hit

I think it's Pass/no record first semester. I know Wellesley also has what they call "shadow grading" (P/F first semester with actual grades shown but not recorded).

 

[Lucca]

Doesn't MIT do pass/fail first year, and I think Harvey Mudd does too. Sounds like a good system to me for mental health reasons, but I'd still need to see some data to believe survival doesn't drop when the curved sophomore and junior classes hit

I dont have data on it, but just from my own experience, regardless of HS preparation, sophomore year you are just far better prepared than freshman year. Freshman year is equalizing to some extent.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion. Schools' definitions of diversity are too vague. Does adding a black student improve diversity of perspective? Sure. So does adding a neo-Nazi.

Really?! You couldn't come up with a better example?!

 

[moggat]

Doesn't MIT do pass/fail first year, and I think Harvey Mudd does too. Sounds like a good system to me for mental health reasons, but I'd still need to see some data to believe survival doesn't drop when the curved sophomore and junior classes hit

Hopkins did pass/fail first semester freshman year (it was wildly popular) but stopped as of last year, likely because of whining by some premeds that they couldn't use their first semester of easy classes to boost their GPA (but admittedly that's hearsay).

 

[cactusman]

Hopkins did pass/fail first semester freshman year (it was wildly popular) but stopped as of last year, likely because of whining by some premeds that they couldn't use their first semester of easy classes to boost their GPA (but admittedly that's hearsay).

High-key me tho.

 

[efle]

Hopkins did pass/fail first semester freshman year (it was wildly popular) but stopped as of last year, likely because of whining by some premeds that they couldn't use their first semester of easy classes to boost their GPA (but admittedly that's hearsay).

Is the freshman year really the easiest at Hopkins? At WashU the prereq chem and bio series hurt GPAs way more than Junior/Senior upper level classes in the same departments

 

[Lucca]

Hopkins did pass/fail first semester freshman year (it was wildly popular) but stopped as of last year, likely because of whining by some premeds that they couldn't use their first semester of easy classes to boost their GPA (but admittedly that's hearsay).

What the lol. That's ridiculous.

 

[mwsapphire]

That kinda stuff is school dependent I guess.
I also think the effect on gpa is negligible, since having a downward trend hurts anyway
I would say benefits far outweigh risks, seeing as three people I know at Wellesley loved having PF first semester. N=3 though.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[JJRousseau]

Hopkins did pass/fail first semester freshman year (it was wildly popular) but stopped as of last year, likely because of whining by some premeds that they couldn't use their first semester of easy classes to boost their GPA (but admittedly that's hearsay).

I would have loved for college to be completely pass/fail with a final examination in your major that also tested general critical thinking skills with passages across the liberal arts and sciences spectrum (sort of like the UK system but adapted to liberal arts and sciences with the second aspect of the test).

Question for the adcoms: Brown has a system that allows students to never receive a grade, but instead a portfolio of evaluations from professors throughout undergraduate. Have you ever seen a student opt for such a system? If I had attended there I most surely would have elected to go with the portfolio as it is more in line with my philosophy of higher education, but would that have diminished my ability to compete in medical school admissions? Let's say the applicant who does this scores in the top decile in the MCAT.

 

[Goro]

I would have loved for college to be completely pass/fail with a final examination in your major that also tested general critical thinking skills with passages across the liberal arts and sciences spectrum (sort of like the UK system but adapted to liberal arts and sciences with the second aspect of the test).

Question for the adcoms: Brown has a system that allows students to never receive a grade, but instead a portfolio of evaluations from professors throughout undergraduate. Have you ever seen a student opt for such a system? If I had attended there I most surely would have elected to go with the portfolio as it is more in line with my philosophy of higher education, but would that have diminished my ability to compete in medical school admissions? Let's say the applicant who does this scores in the top percentile in the MCAT.

No. We have seen students from schools that use P/F. VERY hard to interpret. A high MCAT score merely shows that one is a good test taker, without knowing one's grades. For example, suppose one is lazy, but takes a ton of Kaplan MCAT prep courses?

Not knowing one's grades doesn't allow us to know if you can handle med school.

 

[JJRousseau]

No. We have seen students from schools that use P/F. VERY hard to interpret. A high MCAT score merely shows that one is a good test taker, without knowing one's grades. For example, suppose one is lazy, but takes a ton of Kaplan MCAT prep courses?

Not knowing one's grades doesn't allow us to know if you can handle med school.

Understandable, but what a shame. It's a bit ironic isn't it given that the majority of medical schools have moved to exactly such a system: pass / fail with qualitative feedback, where only performance on USMLE matters.

 

[Goro]

Understandable, but what a shame. It's a bit ironic isn't it given that the majority of medical schools have moved to exactly such a system: pass / fail with qualitative feedback, where only performance on USMLE matters.

Some med schools have done this. It does relieve student stress. Don't know how well it affects Boards though. But keep in mind that PDs don't care about your pre-clinical GPAs. Adcoms do care about your UG grades.

One problem with P/F in med school is that the powers that be always want to have some type of reward for the top students. So PF mutates into H(onors)/P/F. This eventually mutates further into H/HP/P/F, and we're right back to A/B/C/F!

 

[efle]

I would have loved for college to be completely pass/fail with a final examination in your major that also tested general critical thinking skills with passages across the liberal arts and sciences spectrum

I think this would very quickly result in extreme favoritism of the most selective undergrads. Remove the ability to identify standouts and schools are going to prefer to gamble on a random Ivy Leaguer than a random U Stater

 

[efle]

Understandable, but what a shame. It's a bit ironic isn't it given that the majority of medical schools have moved to exactly such a system: pass / fail with qualitative feedback, where only performance on USMLE matters.

Interesting that it's far and away most common at the very top end of schools...
besides I don't think the value of preclinical grades for PDs is anything resembling the value of undergrad grades for adcoms

 

[JJRousseau]

I think this would very quickly result in extreme favoritism of the most selective undergrads. Remove the ability to identify standouts and schools are going to prefer to gamble on a random Ivy Leaguer than a random U Stater

Well, as I said before, I think moving to pass fail would only work if the faculty designed a critical thinking exam and each department had a capstone exam to evaluate end-stage mastery expected of a major coming out of their department. And the exams should have strong essay and short answer components (e.g. a chemistry major should expect a couple of organic synthesis problems of varying difficulty, where the physical chemistry components of orbital theory and electron movement are incorporated). Admittedly, I'm borrowing heavily from what my undergraduate peers experienced at Oxbridge, but trying to retain the breadth that I admire in our education.

 

[efle]

Well, as I said before, I think moving to pass fail would only work if the faculty designed a critical thinking exam and each department had a capstone exam to evaluate end-stage mastery expected of a major coming out of their department. And the exams should have strong essay and short answer components (e.g. a chemistry major should expect a couple of organic synthesis problems of varying difficulty, where the physical chemistry components of orbital theory and electron movement are incorporated). Admittedly, I'm borrowing heavily from what my undergraduate peers experienced at Oxbridge, but trying to retain the breadth that I admire in our education.

I always thought the capstones were a sort of pass/fail thing, like a thesis defense. Do they score people along a distribution, so it would be easy to figure out who the top 5% at U of Maryland were instead of just interviewing hundreds from Hopkins?

 

[JJRousseau]

I always thought the capstones were a sort of pass/fail thing, like a thesis defense. Do they score people along a distribution, so it would be easy to figure out who the top 5% at U of Maryland were instead of just interviewing hundreds from Hopkins?

Well, this is a thought experiment on higher education, so I apologize if using capstone as the term was confusing. I just meant a terminal culminating exam in the major that incorporates more general critical thinking and content absorption skills expected from any major. But in my mind, this exam would give out two grades for your overall pass fail degree. A breadth or liberal arts and sciences score of say Honors, High Pass, Pass, or Fail and a major grade of Honors, High Pass, Pass, or Fail. Failing either category would mean no degree conferred, and a student would need to resit the exam where the best possible outcome is a Pass degree. And sure, the university could track the percentiles of students and report the student's performance overall and within their relevant department.

Edit: I should add this would do much to return value to the undergraduate degree in general and would make the value of your degree (the score) contingent on holistic mastery rather than the whims of which professor taught you which course. It would also probably make professors that teach rigorously and stringently a great deal more popular...

 

[efle]

Well, this is a thought experiment on higher education, so I apologize if using capstone as the term was confusing. I just meant a terminal culminating exam in the major that incorporates more general critical thinking and content absorption skills expected from any major. But in my mind, this exam would give out two grades for your overall pass fail degree. A breadth or liberal arts and sciences score of say Honors, High Pass, Pass, or Fail and a major grade of Honors, High Pass, Pass, or Fail. Failing either category would mean no degree conferred, and a student would need to resit the exam where the best possible outcome is a Pass degree. And sure, the university could track the percentiles of students and report the student's performance overall and within their relevant department.

Haha it sounds like the end result is a system with two MCAT scores, one the national standardized multiple choice and the other a giant university and major dependent final exam series. As long as you can still identify the strongest performers, you have my vote

 

[JJRousseau]

Haha it sounds like the end result is a system with two MCAT scores, one the national standardized multiple choice and the other a giant university and major dependent final exam series. As long as you can still identify the strongest performers, you have my vote

It's a lot more work for faculty, so it will never fly though. Still think it would generally hold students to a higher standard with more demand on retention rather than learning knowledge and skills for three months.