Why soo few blacks in medicine ?

[slowpoke96z28]

Ha, yawn. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, you'll have to expand on your theory and be specific ainsley. If you just want to get an argument started by being offensive, you'll have to try harder than that. Trolls these days, smh....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MedPR]

I was wondering why are there so few blacks in medicine...is there not enough qualified applicants or is there a cap limit?

Not trying to be an ass, but the reason is the same as why there are so many blacks in prison. Poor upbringing, bad neighborhoods, inherently violent, prone to commit crimes, or whatever reason you want to pick, it's the same for why there are so few blacks in medicine. I'm not saying I believe any of these things, but those are the common reasons given for why the prison population is primarily black.

Same reason why there are lots of asians in medicine.. parents push them, failure not acceptable, school is a top priority, etc.

 

[MedPR]

Blacks have a lower chance of getting accepted than Whites and Asians as a whole. This is from the applicant vs. matriculation data by race. However , If GPA is above 3.6 MCAT above 30 Blacks have 90%+ acceptance rate. This is from Black acceptance grid. All on AAMC website.

That's actually a complete misunderstanding of the data. If an Asian and an African American have the same stats, the African American will get accepted because there are much higher standards for Asians than blacks. Not being racist, it's in the data.

I'll just pick on one point, since it's typically the accepted MCAT/GPA range for "you've got a shot".

African american with a 3.6-3.79 GPA and a 30-32 MCAT. 93% acceptance rate
Asian with the same stats. 72.7% acceptance rate.

Statistically it is easier for blacks to get in than Asians or Caucasians. The reason why there are so few blacks in medicine is definitely not because it is harder for them.

My favorite example of reverse racism in this case is this one:

An African American with a 2.8-2.99 and 27-29 has a better chance of getting in than an Asian with a 3.4-3.59 and a 30-32. Try and tell me it's harder for blacks than asians based on that data right there.

 

[MedPR]

When comparing the matriculation rate for different races, you have to have a control, like MCAT/GPA. You can't just say that it's harder to get into med school for blacks because they have a lower acceptance rate. If their GPA/MCAT are lower, of course they are going to have a lower acceptance rate. If you compare every single MCAT/GPA combination, blacks have a higher acceptance rate than whites and asians. That means it is easier for blacks to get in.

I don't care if 1/1000 black applicants gets in if the 999 that got rejected had 2.0GPA and 20MCAT. That is not indicative of "it's harder to get into med school for blacks because only 1/1000 got in". Blacks get accepted with stats that are way lower than whites/asians. Unless you are saying that blacks are dumber, therefore it is harder for them to get equivalent scores as whites/asians, then the fact that a lower percentage matriculate means absolutely nothing.

If, however, you are saying that blacks are dumber (I'm not saying this, I'm posing a possible reason to validate your statement), therefore they should be held at a lower standard, then maybe the fact that a lower percentage of blacks matriculate with lower scores is valid. Maybe.

Even then, as a URM myself (non AA) I don't believe there should be lower standards (though there obviously are) for varying races. Med schools should take whomever they feel is best qualified regardless of race. If that means that 100% of med students are asians because their scores are highest and they have the best ECs, then so be it. It's your responsibility to earn opportunities, not someone else's responsibility to hand them out to you. If you can't earn it without getting the benefit of the doubt because of your race, gender, upbringing, or whatever, then you don't deserve it.

 

[flaahless]

When comparing the matriculation rate for different races, you have to have a control, like MCAT/GPA. You can't just say that it's harder to get into med school for blacks because they have a lower acceptance rate. If their GPA/MCAT are lower, of course they are going to have a lower acceptance rate. If you compare every single MCAT/GPA combination, blacks have a higher acceptance rate than whites and asians. That means it is easier for blacks to get in.

I don't care if 1/1000 black applicants gets in if the 999 that got rejected had 2.0GPA and 20MCAT. That is not indicative of "it's harder to get into med school for blacks because only 1/1000 got in". Blacks get accepted with stats that are way lower than whites/asians. Unless you are saying that blacks are dumber, therefore it is harder for them to get equivalent scores as whites/asians, then the fact that a lower percentage matriculate means absolutely nothing.

If, however, you are saying that blacks are dumber (I'm not saying this, I'm posing a possible reason to validate your statement), therefore they should be held at a lower standard, then maybe the fact that a lower percentage of blacks matriculate with lower scores is valid. Maybe.

Even then, as a URM myself (non AA) I don't believe there should be lower standards (though there obviously are) for varying races. Med schools should take whomever they feel is best qualified regardless of race. If that means that 100% of med students are asians because their scores are highest and they have the best ECs, then so be it. It's your responsibility to earn opportunities, not someone else's responsibility to hand them out to you. If you can't earn it without getting the benefit of the doubt because of your race, gender, upbringing, or whatever, then you don't deserve it.

Take it from first hand experience. You can't please idiots. Haha. To the rest of yall that have to put up with this stuff on the boards, keep doing you. Do the best you can and when you get to med school continue to do well. Although the pre-med haters won't stop, they quickly become irrelevant the second you smash em on Step. Keep up the good work my friends.

 

[MedPR]

How does interpreting data make me a hater? Blacks get in with lower scores than non-blacks, and the data supports that. Racism is not always negative, the fact that ADCOMs expect more from asians is racist, but the racism there is based on the (positive) assumption that asians are smarter or can perform better in school. The fact that blacks and other racial minorities matriculate with lower scores is also racism.

As defined by dictionary.com, Racism is
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racesdetermine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

You don't see blacks or other racial minorities complaining that med schools accept them with lower scores, and thus hold them at a lower standard. Racial minorities only want to be treated equally when it benefits them. You also don't see asians complaining that they are held at a higher standard. For the most part they accept it and work their asses off to meet and exceed expectations.

If an asian gets a 4.0 and a 35, you probably wouldn't be too impressed, but if another racial minority gets a 4.0 and a 35, you would probably think they are really smart. Racism.

Contrary to popular belief, racism helps blacks and hurts asians. AAMC's data on the relationship between MCAT, GPA, and matriculation is evidence of that.

 

[flaahless]

How does interpreting data make me a hater? Blacks get in with lower scores than non-blacks, and the data supports that. Racism is not always negative, the fact that ADCOMs expect more from asians is racist, but the racism there is based on the (positive) assumption that asians are smarter or can perform better in school. The fact that blacks and other racial minorities matriculate with lower scores is also racism.

As defined by dictionary.com, Racism is
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racesdetermine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

You don't see blacks or other racial minorities complaining that med schools accept them with lower scores, and thus hold them at a lower standard. Racial minorities only want to be treated equally when it benefits them. You also don't see asians complaining that they are held at a higher standard. For the most part they accept it and work their asses off to meet and exceed expectations.

If an asian gets a 4.0 and a 35, you probably wouldn't be too impressed, but if another racial minority gets a 4.0 and a 35, you would probably think they are really smart. Racism.

Contrary to popular belief, racism helps blacks and hurts asians. AAMC's data on the relationship between MCAT, GPA, and matriculation is evidence of that.

Dude. Go to med school first and before you talk about students being held to a lower standard. The notion of schools accepting minority applicants and holding them to a lower standard is flat out ludacris. (Shout out to Disturbing the Peace records.) You keep referencing MCAT and GPA as if that's what determines the quality of medical student ---> doctor. It's pure ignorance that this board loves to purport as reverse racism. MCAT-GPA don't mean jack, Ochem is nothing like developmental embryology, the Verbal reasoning portion of the test does not predict your professionalism or how well you will achieve the core competencies of medicine or how well you can manage patients. 3rd and 4th year med school, are NOTHING like undergrad. It's unfortunate for the minority applicants that you and other self-entitled premeds continue to spew this racially charged BS simply because you can't handle your shattered ego after seeing someone accepted with credentials different than theirs.

My history... 4 years ago I was a premed applying with a 29R that sparked a conflagration of hate and racism on this board from neurotic premeds like you. 4 years later, I'm a top applicant for residency and Step scores > 80th percentile. Not too bad for someone who was let in by the graces of affirmative action even though I go to a school in a state that does not practice AA.

Lastly, if anyone gets a 4.0, 35 that's impressive.... Unfortunately for them, the admissions criteria doesn't stop there. ECs, LORs, interviews, experiences and intangibles are all considered. Don't blame others if you're application is one-dimensional and gets overlooked. Maybe you should hang out with those minority kids and see what they're doing right.

 

[142348]

Dude. Go to med school first and before you talk about students being held to a lower standard. The notion of schools accepting minority applicants and holding them to a lower standard is flat out ludacris. (Shout out to Disturbing the Peace records.) You keep referencing MCAT and GPA as if that's what determines the quality of medical student ---> doctor. It's pure ignorance that this board loves to purport as reverse racism. MCAT-GPA don't mean jack, Ochem is nothing like developmental embryology, the Verbal reasoning portion of the test does not predict your professionalism or how well you will achieve the core competencies of medicine or how well you can manage patients. 3rd and 4th year med school, are NOTHING like undergrad. It's unfortunate for the minority applicants that you and other self-entitled premeds continue to spew this racially charged BS simply because you can't handle your shattered ego after seeing someone accepted with credentials different than theirs.

My history... 4 years ago I was a premed applying with a 29R that sparked a conflagration of hate and racism on this board from neurotic premeds like you. 4 years later, I'm a top applicant for residency and Step scores > 80th percentile. Not too bad for someone who was let in by the graces of affirmative action even though I go to a school in a state that does not practice AA.

Lastly, if anyone gets a 4.0, 35 that's impressive.... Unfortunately for them, the admissions criteria doesn't stop there. ECs, LORs, interviews, experiences and intangibles are all considered. Don't blame others if you're application is one-dimensional and gets overlooked. Maybe you should hang out with those minority kids and see what they're doing right.

I agree with you on some points and disagree on some. I completely agree that once you are in med school, all students are held to the same standard, there are no tiers everyone is judged equally and up til 3rd year objectively. I also agree that undergrad scores in ochem are not always predictive of med school performance. Where I disagree is in that I think there needs to be more transparency in the process; it's very difficult to quantify things like EC's, LOR's, etc. and so when looking at objective measures (GPA/MCAT) there is certainly a discrepancy present. The question is why? I don't think med schools are doing a good enough job of explaining why they are taking some candidates with lower objective measures and better subjective measures. I think most of society wants the "best" doctors out there, now how you define that varies significantly but I have trouble with the thought that schools are trying to balance out classes from a race or other factor perspective rather than taking the best applicants available to them.

 

[flaahless]

I agree with you on some points and disagree on some. I completely agree that once you are in med school, all students are held to the same standard, there are no tiers everyone is judged equally and up til 3rd year objectively. I also agree that undergrad scores in ochem are not always predictive of med school performance. Where I disagree is in that I think there needs to be more transparency in the process; it's very difficult to quantify things like EC's, LOR's, etc. and so when looking at objective measures (GPA/MCAT) there is certainly a discrepancy present. The question is why? I don't think med schools are doing a good enough job of explaining why they are taking some candidates with lower objective measures and better subjective measures. I think most of society wants the "best" doctors out there, now how you define that varies significantly but I have trouble with the thought that schools are trying to balance out classes from a race or other factor perspective rather than taking the best applicants available to them.

Your argument is predicated upon the delusion that GPA+MCAT=best applicant. Keep believing that and you'll continue to get your feelings hurt when a better applicant gets in with lower scores than you. Furthermore, if that was the case, why interview, why get LORs or why have an experiences section on the AMCAS? Why not just have name, school, MCAT+GPA and call it a day?

My issue is with this site is that when it comes to trying to objectively view subjective criteria, instead of giving applicants the benefit of the doubt that maybe there is something about these folks that adcoms find compelling, premeds here scream RACISM at the top of their lungs and then disrespect, debase and belittle the accomplishments of minority applicants in an attempt to make them feel 3/5 human. It's really pathetic and reeks of jealously, self-entitlement and overhwhelming ignorance.

 

[142348]

Your argument is predicated upon the delusion that GPA+MCAT=best applicant. Keep believing that and you'll continue to get your feelings hurt when a better applicant gets in with lower scores than you. Furthermore, if that was the case, why interview, why get LORs or why have an experiences section on the AMCAS? Why not just have name, school, MCAT+GPA and call it a day?

My issue is with this site is that when it comes to trying to objectively view subjective criteria, instead of giving applicants the benefit of the doubt that maybe there is something about these folks that adcoms find compelling, premeds here scream RACISM at the top of their lungs and then disrespect, debase and belittle the accomplishments of minority applicants in an attempt to make them feel 3/5 human. It's really pathetic and reeks of jealously, self-entitlement and overhwhelming ignorance.

It's become apparent that you're not willing to have a meaningful discussion. Unlike many of the others that have posted, I am a senior resident and have gone through the med school plus 5 years of residency now so your "Keep believing that and you'll continue to get your feelings hurt when a better applicant gets in with lower scores than you." doesnt work so well on me. If you read my previous post you would realize I wasn't saying that MCAT + GPA were the end all be all, simply the few objective measures in the application. when I spoke of transperancy, I was speaking to med schools explaining why there needs to be a rationale for why an EC might trump four years of undergrad tests or an entrance exam. I have no problems with people with lower objective measures and more impressive subjective measures being accepted over simply an applicant with numbers, though your post assumes that anyone who disagrees with your stance feels that way. Maybe your experience on this board is greater than mine as I spend most of my time in the Rad Onc forum and happened to see the post and clicked on it.

I don't agree with people neeedlessly screaming racism or reverse racism or whatever, its pointless and doesn't solve the core problem. Instead, an open dialogue will more likely solve the issue but it seems that based on the posts I've read that both sides are so entrenched in a position that neither is even willing to consider other thoughts.

 

[flaahless]

It's become apparent that you're not willing to have a meaningful discussion. Unlike many of the others that have posted, I am a senior resident and have gone through the med school plus 5 years of residency now so your "Keep believing that and you'll continue to get your feelings hurt when a better applicant gets in with lower scores than you." doesnt work so well on me. If you read my previous post you would realize I wasn't saying that MCAT + GPA were the end all be all, simply the few objective measures in the application. when I spoke of transperancy, I was speaking to med schools explaining why there needs to be a rationale for why an EC might trump four years of undergrad tests or an entrance exam. I have no problems with people with lower objective measures and more impressive subjective measures being accepted over simply an applicant with numbers, though your post assumes that anyone who disagrees with your stance feels that way. Maybe your experience on this board is greater than mine as I spend most of my time in the Rad Onc forum and happened to see the post and clicked on it.

I don't agree with people neeedlessly screaming racism or reverse racism or whatever, its pointless and doesn't solve the core problem. Instead, an open dialogue will more likely solve the issue but it seems that based on the posts I've read that both sides are so entrenched in a position that neither is even willing to consider other thoughts.

The issue with a "meaningful and open discussion" is that this site is dominated by the racial majority, and as such "meaningful" talks often serve as a catharsis for disgruntled, self-entitled premeds to vent racially charged drivel over the net, and quickly devolve into a med schools are "passing up the best applicants" and "lowering their standards" to reach some sort of "racial quota" BS argument. That's implied, or actually blatantly stated in the last quote of your previous post. Sorry if you feel I misunderstood you, but that's what you wrote.

Reality is, there is an overwhelming pool of highly qualified applicants and schools accept and reject students for various reasons. If this was an entirely objective process, the AMCAS would be 1/2 page long and only include name, school, GPA, MCAT. However, that's not the case, so if minority student x with 3.4/28 gets accepted over racial majority student y with 3.8/34, that's just the nature of the beast. Both were likely qualified and for some reason the school decided to take the minority applicant... who am I kidding, they were obviously trying fulfill their racial quota of 10 urm students in a class of 120+. sarcasm*

I obviously don't believe schools have racial quotas (or attempt to balance the classes) given the anemic numbers of minorities in medical education. Instead, I believe schools value diversity of thought and experiences and look to admit students that demonstrate the commitment to learning, self-improvement and professionalism that makes for a great doc. The latter qualities aren't necessarily reflected in MCAT+GPA and are perhaps better gleaned from LORs, extracurriculars, service etc. But to assume that a teenager/20 something with little life experience and still living off mommy and daddy is going to develop into a great doc because they killed the MCAT is ridiculous. Obviously I'm being extreme, and I'm not saying minority students have more impressive subjective criteria than non-urms, but I am saying the notion that "MCAT+GPA" has a linear relationship to "quality of physician" is just wrong.

 

[142348]

The issue with a "meaningful and open discussion" is that this site is dominated by the racial majority, and as such "meaningful" talks often serve as a catharsis for disgruntled, self-entitled premeds to vent racially charged drivel over the net, and quickly devolve into a med schools are "passing up the best applicants" and "lowering their standards" to reach some sort of "racial quota" BS argument. That's implied, or actually blatantly stated in the last quote of your previous post. Sorry if you feel I misunderstood you, but that's what you wrote.

Reality is, there is an overwhelming pool of highly qualified applicants and schools accept and reject students for various reasons. If this was an entirely objective process, the AMCAS would be 1/2 page long and only include name, school, GPA, MCAT. However, that's not the case, so if minority student x with 3.4/28 gets accepted over racial majority student y with 3.8/34, that's just the nature of the beast. Both were likely qualified and for some reason the school decided to take the minority applicant... who am I kidding, they were obviously trying fulfill their racial quota of 10 urm students in a class of 120+. sarcasm*

I obviously don't believe schools have racial quotas (or attempt to balance the classes) given the anemic numbers of minorities in medical education. Instead, I believe schools value diversity of thought and experiences and look to admit students that demonstrate the commitment to learning, self-improvement and professionalism that makes for a great doc. The latter qualities aren't necessarily reflected in MCAT+GPA and are perhaps better gleaned from LORs, extracurriculars, service etc. But to assume that a teenager/20 something with little life experience and still living off mommy and daddy is going to develop into a great doc because they killed the MCAT is ridiculous. Obviously I'm being extreme, and I'm not saying minority students have more impressive subjective criteria than non-urms, but I am saying the notion that "MCAT+GPA" has a linear relationship to "quality of physician" is just wrong.

You may not want to belive that graduate schools are using "racial quotas" or pushing to increase diversity but there are documented cases (ex. The University of Michigan Law School case heard by the Supreme Court). It's real, whether you choose to admit or not. On what scale it's being used I have no idea.

To your other point, while you get your MD/DO when you finish med school, you don't really become a physician until you finish residency. So what med schools are looking for are the potential best medical students. How do you define that...getting a great residency, or board scores (as you highlighted with your post about your own), or some other driver. The thing is there is increasing data to support that GPA and MCAT scores from undergrad correlate with board scores. For example,

J Natl Med Assoc. 2005 Sep;97(9):1258-62.
Factors that correlate with the U.S. Medical Licensure Examination Step-2 scores in a diverse medical student population.

Ogunyemi D, Taylor-Harris D.

So sure subjective criteria are absolutely important but I don't know of any published data supporting that they are correlated with higher board scores, class rank, etc.

 

[slowpoke96z28]

...i think the biggest thing is interest. not many african americans are attracted to the profession, and as long as there are enough applicants already to fill schools, there won't be a big push to change that...

i still stand by what i and others have said. i cant speak for blacks in general, but there just isnt widespread interest in the profession among african americans. there may be some pushto go into nursing, but thats as involved as it gets. its not a level of matriculation issue, its a level of applicants issue.

and if the term "reverse racism" isn't the dumbest thing in the world, i don't know what is, and i think something is fundamentally wrong with people who try to claim it. fwiw, if you use the term, it makes YOU appear racist to minorites, or at the least, to not understand what racism really is.

 

[MedPR]

Dude. Go to med school first and before you talk about students being held to a lower standard. The notion of schools accepting minority applicants and holding them to a lower standard is flat out ludacris. (Shout out to Disturbing the Peace records.) You keep referencing MCAT and GPA as if that's what determines the quality of medical student ---> doctor. It's pure ignorance that this board loves to purport as reverse racism. MCAT-GPA don't mean jack, Ochem is nothing like developmental embryology, the Verbal reasoning portion of the test does not predict your professionalism or how well you will achieve the core competencies of medicine or how well you can manage patients. 3rd and 4th year med school, are NOTHING like undergrad. It's unfortunate for the minority applicants that you and other self-entitled premeds continue to spew this racially charged BS simply because you can't handle your shattered ego after seeing someone accepted with credentials different than theirs.

My history... 4 years ago I was a premed applying with a 29R that sparked a conflagration of hate and racism on this board from neurotic premeds like you. 4 years later, I'm a top applicant for residency and Step scores > 80th percentile. Not too bad for someone who was let in by the graces of affirmative action even though I go to a school in a state that does not practice AA.

Lastly, if anyone gets a 4.0, 35 that's impressive.... Unfortunately for them, the admissions criteria doesn't stop there. ECs, LORs, interviews, experiences and intangibles are all considered. Don't blame others if you're application is one-dimensional and gets overlooked. Maybe you should hang out with those minority kids and see what they're doing right.

Matriculating certain races with lower scores isn't indicative of holding them to a lower standard? Perhaps you're not familiar with what a "lower standard" is. You're right that it goes beyond MCAT/GPA, but Asians/Caucasians don't get in with a 3.2 and 29. They don't even get looked at if those are their scores. Blacks matriculate with those scores. Sounds like the definition of lower standards to me.

 

[FearlessHyena]

Matriculating certain races with lower scores isn't indicative of holding them to a lower standard? Perhaps you're not familiar with what a "lower standard" is. You're right that it goes beyond MCAT/GPA, but Asians/Caucasians don't get in with a 3.2 and 29. They don't even get looked at if those are their scores. Blacks matriculate with those scores. Sounds like the definition of lower standards to me.

That's not true. There are more White/Asian applicants accepted with substandard numbers than URM's who enroll overall. Yes, being a minority helps, but EC's are big. This is what the majority doesn't get. And no I'm not denying that numerically there are lower standards, I was countering your point that they do not get looked at. It's just significantly harder. Their chances are reduced, but I remember seeing an MD apps of an Asian guy with a 32 3.2, who got into some top ten school. He was from CA and had amazing EC's. People underestimate EC's.

I am black with a 38 MCAT and 3.6 GPA. I posted a screen shot of my score, so you can look at my post history to find it. I've been rejected at a host of top schools. Granted, I applied super late (amcas verified in early November), but I've seen other black males with worse numbers get acceptances to schools that rejected me pre-interview. My EC's are mediocre. Yes being a minority helps, but you better have something unique. I do not. I could be mad that Vandy rejected me pre-secondary and accepted another URM on this board who has a 29 and 3.4. So, why not even interview me? That guy has actually worked with the underserved. I have not.

Finally, MedPR, there are ways of making your points without being so condescending. I've observed this thread and your mannerisms are appalling. What makes it worse is that you are a URM as well, if I'm not mistaken. The current system is what it is. Will it change? I hope it will one day. But, most of your posts have contributed nothing. I would suggest that this thread be closed, if it continues in the manner as it does nothing. Both sides are to blame.

URM's are held to lower standards numerically. This can't be argued. This doesn't mean that they are unqualified. I have tons of friends in medical school and know of a white male who only got a 27 on the MCAT and is currently at the University of Iowa. He got a 257 on step one. If a URM had gotten in with that score, people would have screamed reverse-racism. The point is that most people who get in are qualified but may not necessarily have the best numbers. Finally, the majority needs to understand that just because you have a higher MCAT score and GPA doesn't mean you are more worthy of an acceptance to a school. This is the big thing to consider. So, my fellow minorities, please admit that being URM gives a boost. However, the majority needs to understand that many of these kids offer unique experiences other than just skin color, which the majority ignores.

My long 2 cents. I will not post here again as it is too disconcerting and angering (both sides). It's just that I felt the need to address some of MedPR's points.

 

[slowpoke96z28]

what should be the case is race shouldn't be considered at all, interviews should be typed, and correspondence should go a standardized mail service so it isn't even known where an applicant is from other than their school. that way, race isn't known until the student shows uo after being accepted. the technology exists to do so. even HBCUs are a non-issue because those schools accept all races, so race can't be assumed by the school attended either. problem solved, problem staying solved.

 

[FcFabRegion]

what should be the case is race shouldn't be considered at all, interviews should be typed, and correspondence should go a standardized mail service so it isn't even known where an applicant is from other than their school. that way, race isn't known until the student shows uo after being accepted. the technology exists to do so. even HBCUs are a non-issue because those schools accept all races, so race can't be assumed by the school attended either. problem solved, problem staying solved.

This is facetiousness, right?

 

[MumDoc]

Please Ignore MedPR. This person does not know what the hell he or she is talking about. He or she is just spewing crap. Do not pay attention to him/her. MedPR, do some research about the admissions process, it will help you.

 

[link2swim06]

The problem in my mind isnt about the jump from college to med school imo whatsoever. If anything its super slanted in favor of any AAs which made it through college compared to whites, asians, etc.

The problem is K-12 and then going to college. AA have a huge disproportionate about of poverty, single parent homes, high school dropouts, and higher arrest rates (economic demographic excluded) than other groups. Therefore the problem lies in a much much much smaller pool of people to choose from.

"Fixing" this involves fixing K-12 school nationwide and a culture shift...neither of which is going to happen.

 

[link2swim06]

That's not true. There are more White/Asian applicants accepted with substandard numbers than URM's who enroll overall. Yes, being a minority helps, but EC's are big. This is what the majority doesn't get. And no I'm not denying that numerically there are lower standards, I was countering your point that they do not get looked at. It's just significantly harder. Their chances are reduced, but I remember seeing an MD apps of an Asian guy with a 32 3.2, who got into some top ten school. He was from CA and had amazing EC's. People underestimate EC's.

I am black with a 38 MCAT and 3.6 GPA. I posted a screen shot of my score, so you can look at my post history to find it. I've been rejected at a host of top schools. Granted, I applied super late (amcas verified in early November), but I've seen other black males with worse numbers get acceptances to schools that rejected me pre-interview. My EC's are mediocre. Yes being a minority helps, but you better have something unique. I do not. I could be mad that Vandy rejected me pre-secondary and accepted another URM on this board who has a 29 and 3.4. So, why not even interview me? That guy has actually worked with the underserved. I have not.

Finally, MedPR, there are ways of making your points without being so condescending. I've observed this thread and your mannerisms are appalling. What makes it worse is that you are a URM as well, if I'm not mistaken. The current system is what it is. Will it change? I hope it will one day. But, most of your posts have contributed nothing. I would suggest that this thread be closed, if it continues in the manner as it does nothing. Both sides are to blame.

URM's are held to lower standards numerically. This can't be argued. This doesn't mean that they are unqualified. I have tons of friends in medical school and know of a white male who only got a 27 on the MCAT and is currently at the University of Iowa. He got a 257 on step one. If a URM had gotten in with that score, people would have screamed reverse-racism. The point is that most people who get in are qualified but may not necessarily have the best numbers. Finally, the majority needs to understand that just because you have a higher MCAT score and GPA doesn't mean you are more worthy of an acceptance to a school. This is the big thing to consider. So, my fellow minorities, please admit that being URM gives a boost. However, the majority needs to understand that many of these kids offer unique experiences other than just skin color, which the majority ignores.

My long 2 cents. I will not post here again as it is too disconcerting and angering (both sides). It's just that I felt the need to address some of MedPR's points.

Two factors which need to be considered:

1. Having a racial diverse population of doctors is very important. We cant ignore this.

2. However, the problem is AA have significantly lower standards in admissions which is leading to significantly lower attrition rates.

Here is the data from the AAMC:

For every 100 white students approx 1 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons.

For every 100 AA students approx 7 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons. Furthermore a large portion of AA students will repeat a year...making the amount of AAs graduating on time only 60% (compared to 85% for whites).

So the issue people have is if you have X spots for admission, dropping the GPA/MCAT for too many students is going to reduce the number of doctors you will ultimately graduate.

If you make through med school and boards you deserve to be a doctor...but when access to a doctor is a major problem for many patients, where is the balance between diversity and graduating full classes?

 

[142348]

Two factors which need to be considered:

1. Having a racial diverse population of doctors is very important. We cant ignore this.

2. However, the problem is AA have significantly lower standards in admissions which is leading to significantly lower attrition rates.

Here is the data from the AAMC:

For every 100 white students approx 1 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons.

For every 100 AA students approx 7 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons. Furthermore a large portion of AA students will repeat a year...making the amount of AAs graduating on time only 60% (compared to 85% for whites).

So the issue people have is if you have X spots for admission, dropping the GPA/MCAT for too many students is going to reduce the number of doctors you will ultimately graduate.

If you make through med school and boards you deserve to be a doctor...but when access to a doctor is a major problem for many patients, where is the balance between diversity and graduating full classes?

I agree with the majority of what you have said and was previously unaware of the matriculation data you cited. I think that this important to recognize; if medical schools are using different objective criteria (MCAT/GPA) for admission (as noted by the entrance data previously noted) and then seeing different matriculation data because of it, higlights that these objective criteria are in fact a good surrogate for medical school success (i.e graduating, not repeating years).

Where I disagree with you is point 1. Diveristy is a great thing but diversity for the sake of diversity achieves nothing. Pushing for increased diversity works only if the end products are equivalent in medical knowledge/skills to what graduates had prior. What the data you presented suggests is that is not the case as more minority candidates are failing out or requiring remediation. At this point, it is unlikely to change since the Supreme Court has ruled that this fair game for graduate schools.

 

[142348]

That's not true. There are more White/Asian applicants accepted with substandard numbers than URM's who enroll overall. Yes, being a minority helps, but EC's are big. This is what the majority doesn't get. And no I'm not denying that numerically there are lower standards, I was countering your point that they do not get looked at. It's just significantly harder. Their chances are reduced, but I remember seeing an MD apps of an Asian guy with a 32 3.2, who got into some top ten school. He was from CA and had amazing EC's. People underestimate EC's.

I am black with a 38 MCAT and 3.6 GPA. I posted a screen shot of my score, so you can look at my post history to find it. I've been rejected at a host of top schools. Granted, I applied super late (amcas verified in early November), but I've seen other black males with worse numbers get acceptances to schools that rejected me pre-interview. My EC's are mediocre. Yes being a minority helps, but you better have something unique. I do not. I could be mad that Vandy rejected me pre-secondary and accepted another URM on this board who has a 29 and 3.4. So, why not even interview me? That guy has actually worked with the underserved. I have not.

Finally, MedPR, there are ways of making your points without being so condescending. I've observed this thread and your mannerisms are appalling. What makes it worse is that you are a URM as well, if I'm not mistaken. The current system is what it is. Will it change? I hope it will one day. But, most of your posts have contributed nothing. I would suggest that this thread be closed, if it continues in the manner as it does nothing. Both sides are to blame.

URM's are held to lower standards numerically. This can't be argued. This doesn't mean that they are unqualified. I have tons of friends in medical school and know of a white male who only got a 27 on the MCAT and is currently at the University of Iowa. He got a 257 on step one. If a URM had gotten in with that score, people would have screamed reverse-racism. The point is that most people who get in are qualified but may not necessarily have the best numbers. Finally, the majority needs to understand that just because you have a higher MCAT score and GPA doesn't mean you are more worthy of an acceptance to a school. This is the big thing to consider. So, my fellow minorities, please admit that being URM gives a boost. However, the majority needs to understand that many of these kids offer unique experiences other than just skin color, which the majority ignores.

My long 2 cents. I will not post here again as it is too disconcerting and angering (both sides). It's just that I felt the need to address some of MedPR's points.

I agree with you, there are always going to be candidates from every race with lower numbers than the average due to other subjective factors. I also agree with "URM's are held to lower standards numerically. This can't be argued." Where I disagree is with your statement " the majority needs to understand that many of these kids offer unique experiences other than just skin color, which the majority ignores." How do you quantify these experiences? Does growing up poor and volunteering in a underserved area for one applicant trump an internship at the Pasteur Institute for example that another applicant got into and that their parents could afford to pay for? i dont think there is a "fair" way to answer that. Further, I think it's flawed to assume that overall, URM's have more "unique experiences" whereas the data consistently demonstrates that URM's have lower objective scores (GPA/MCAT per AAMC data

 

[flaahless]

You may not want to belive that graduate schools are using "racial quotas" or pushing to increase diversity but there are documented cases (ex. The University of Michigan Law School case heard by the Supreme Court). It's real, whether you choose to admit or not. On what scale it's being used I have no idea.

To your other point, while you get your MD/DO when you finish med school, you don't really become a physician until you finish residency. So what med schools are looking for are the potential best medical students. How do you define that...getting a great residency, or board scores (as you highlighted with your post about your own), or some other driver. The thing is there is increasing data to support that GPA and MCAT scores from undergrad correlate with board scores. For example,

J Natl Med Assoc. 2005 Sep;97(9):1258-62.
Factors that correlate with the U.S. Medical Licensure Examination Step-2 scores in a diverse medical student population.

Ogunyemi D, Taylor-Harris D.

So sure subjective criteria are absolutely important but I don't know of any published data supporting that they are correlated with higher board scores, class rank, etc.

I like your selective appreciation of hard data.

The Michigan case you referenced led to state legislation that prohibits AA, but we'll ignore that because you "know" it is being practiced? Haha. Let's quantify it, I say AA is being used to the same extent self-entitled premeds/sr. residents use this argument to bolster their racial prejudices.

I agree, you don't really become a doctor until post med school/residency. At this stage though, you're no longer judged on your ability to read an esoteric 16th century passage, but you are judged on your ability to provide safe, competent care and be a strong team player. These character qualities are difficult to glean from an A+ in quantitative chemistry.

Lastly, the lower standard issue I find ridiculous. Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier. Yet, this site is full of premeds and senior residents alike arguing the significance of irrelevant statistics (MCAT+GPA) when it comes to patient care. Do they predict step, sure. But a motivated student with a well-structured curriculum and a Qbank can easily overcome that data.

 

[link2swim06]

I agree with the majority of what you have said and was previously unaware of the matriculation data you cited. I think that this important to recognize; if medical schools are using different objective criteria (MCAT/GPA) for admission (as noted by the entrance data previously noted) and then seeing different matriculation data because of it, higlights that these objective criteria are in fact a good surrogate for medical school success (i.e graduating, not repeating years).

Where I disagree with you is point 1. Diveristy is a great thing but diversity for the sake of diversity achieves nothing. Pushing for increased diversity works only if the end products are equivalent in medical knowledge/skills to what graduates had prior. What the data you presented suggests is that is not the case as more minority candidates are failing out or requiring remediation. At this point, it is unlikely to change since the Supreme Court has ruled that this fair game for graduate schools.

I dont have time to look for studies, but two points which seem logical to me why diversity is important:

1. From a PCP standpoint, patients might be more willing to see a physician who is more culturally in touch with them. Obviously I am speaking in vast generalities, but I could see some patients be more willing to fully discuss their situation with their own race (similar to the idea women often prefer a women OB/Gyn).

2. Having a role model is a strong influence in the upcoming generation, therefore, it is logical to conclude having a diverse population of physician gives upcoming generations more equality.

I am a white male, so all affirmative action negatively affects me, but I do think there are two strong sides to argument, neither of which should be discounted.

 

[flaahless]

Two factors which need to be considered:

1. Having a racial diverse population of doctors is very important. We cant ignore this.

2. However, the problem is AA have significantly lower standards in admissions which is leading to significantly lower attrition rates.

Here is the data from the AAMC:

For every 100 white students approx 1 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons.

For every 100 AA students approx 7 will fail out of med school due to academic reasons. Furthermore a large portion of AA students will repeat a year...making the amount of AAs graduating on time only 60% (compared to 85% for whites).

So the issue people have is if you have X spots for admission, dropping the GPA/MCAT for too many students is going to reduce the number of doctors you will ultimately graduate.

If you make through med school and boards you deserve to be a doctor...but when access to a doctor is a major problem for many patients, where is the balance between diversity and graduating full classes?

1. I have no idea where you're getting your data or arriving at your conclusions.
2. Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing.
3. Are the students that are supposedly "failing out" the same students that matriculate with lower scores? Who knows. But you're argument definitely insinuates this. Who knows if the students failing out were the cream of the crop 4.0/38 and are just fed up with cold, competitive and conservative culture of medicine?

I forgot why I've been gone for years. Time to disappear again but before I do...

I find it humorous, or rather pathetic and despicable that such ridiculous BS is spread on this site as gospel. This thread was to address the anemic numbers of black folks in medicine (limited access to education, small pool of applicants and dwindling pipeline)... But in SDN language any thread that mentions minorities actually means - "free-for-all onslaught on why affirmative action is unfair and medical student spots are going to unqualified prison inmates ie: URMs, rather than the deserving, neurotic, self-entitled and prejudiced children of the upper 20% and racial majority."

To the URMs on this site. You've earned every acceptance, award and accomplishment and deserve your seat just as much as anyone else. You are held to the same standards and core competencies of every US trained medical student and will be well qualified at the end of your education/training. Keep beasting them. It's impossible to argue with the blind. Shine when you're in medical school and hopefully they'll see the light.

 

[link2swim06]

I like your selective appreciation of hard data.

The Michigan case you referenced led to state legislation that prohibits AA, but we'll ignore that because you "know" it is being practiced? Haha. Let's quantify it, I say AA is being used to the same extent self-entitled premeds/sr. residents use this argument to bolster their racial prejudices.

I agree, you don't really become a doctor until post med school/residency. At this stage though, you're no longer judged on your ability to read an esoteric 16th century passage, but you are judged on your ability to provide safe, competent care and be a strong team player. These character qualities are difficult to glean from an A+ in quantitative chemistry.

Lastly, the lower standard issue I find ridiculous. Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier. Yet, this site is full of premeds and senior residents alike arguing the significance of irrelevant statistics (MCAT+GPA) when it comes to patient care. Do they predict step, sure. But a motivated student with a well-structured curriculum and a Qbank can easily overcome that data.

The point about the MCAT+GPA is lower stats predict up to 7X higher failure in med school. I dont have a metric about how "good" the doctor is per MCAT+GPA, but is admitting people who are likely to fail a good idea?

 

[142348]

I like your selective appreciation of hard data.

The Michigan case you referenced led to state legislation that prohibits AA, but we'll ignore that because you "know" it is being practiced? Haha. Let's quantify it, I say AA is being used to the same extent self-entitled premeds/sr. residents use this argument to bolster their racial prejudices.

I agree, you don't really become a doctor until post med school/residency. At this stage though, you're no longer judged on your ability to read an esoteric 16th century passage, but you are judged on your ability to provide safe, competent care and be a strong team player. These character qualities are difficult to glean from an A+ in quantitative chemistry.

Lastly, the lower standard issue I find ridiculous. Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier. Yet, this site is full of premeds and senior residents alike arguing the significance of irrelevant statistics (MCAT+GPA) when it comes to patient care. Do they predict step, sure. But a motivated student with a well-structured curriculum and a Qbank can easily overcome that data.

You don't believe AA or a similar type of measure is being used and stand by that...how do you explain away the significant difference in objective measures, obviously it must be the over the top EC/research/etc. While that may be the case for some, I have trouble believing that overall, that is the only reason. So what is then?

You may not value that A+ in chemistry but one thing becomes clear from your post, you don't understand medicine these days. Test taking is a huge part of training from Steps 1-3 through specialty boards (I have 4 boards to take) before I am board certified. So yea, how you take tests as an undergrad is important because you are going to be taking them for a long time. You say, "Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier." Really...as someone who sees the residency process, I can tell you many programs filter based on step 1 scores before they get to those personal characteristics you highlight. Since MCAT/GPA correlate with Step, and step one of the biggest things used for competitive fields, I dont see how your arguement on the merits of personal characteristics holds up. How you handle 2 weeks of L+D nights might mean something if you are applying to OB, but if you're applying to Derm, Rads, Rad Onc, etc., from my experience we don't care.

 

[MIAYO]

I like your selective appreciation of hard data.

The Michigan case you referenced led to state legislation that prohibits AA, but we'll ignore that because you "know" it is being practiced? Haha. Let's quantify it, I say AA is being used to the same extent self-entitled premeds/sr. residents use this argument to bolster their racial prejudices.

I agree, you don't really become a doctor until post med school/residency. At this stage though, you're no longer judged on your ability to read an esoteric 16th century passage, but you are judged on your ability to provide safe, competent care and be a strong team player. These character qualities are difficult to glean from an A+ in quantitative chemistry.

Lastly, the lower standard issue I find ridiculous. Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier. Yet, this site is full of premeds and senior residents alike arguing the significance of irrelevant statistics (MCAT+GPA) when it comes to patient care. Do they predict step, sure. But a motivated student with a well-structured curriculum and a Qbank can easily overcome that data.

I know you are trying to prove a point with the 12/1.5 stat, but I have to say that this type of student would have no chance at passing the boards. The bottomline is that a certain level of intellect is required to become a competent(licensed even) physician.

 

[link2swim06]

1. I have no idea where you're getting your data or arriving at your conclusions.
2. Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing.
3. Are the students that are supposedly "failing out" the same students that matriculate with lower scores? Who knows. But you're argument definitely insinuates this. Who knows if the students failing out were the cream of the crop 4.0/38 and are just fed up with cold, competitive and conservative culture of medicine?

I forgot why I've been gone for years. Time to disappear again but before I do...

I find it humorous, or rather pathetic and despicable that such ridiculous BS is spread on this site as gospel. This thread was to address the anemic numbers of black folks in medicine (limited access to education, small pool of applicants and dwindling pipeline)... But in SDN language any thread that mentions minorities actually means - "free-for-all onslaught on why affirmative action is unfair and medical student spots are going to unqualified prison inmates ie: URMs, rather than the deserving, neurotic, self-entitled and prejudiced children of the upper 20% and racial majority."

To the URMs on this site. You've earned every acceptance, award and accomplishment and deserve your seat just as much as anyone else. You are held to the same standards and core competencies of every US trained medical student and will be well qualified at the end of your education/training. Keep beasting them. It's impossible to argue with the blind. Shine when you're in medical school and hopefully they'll see the light.

If you are going to attack my numbers, you should at least have numbers yourself otherwise your argument is baseless at best.

From the AAMC showing AA are more likely to fail med school: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf

Here is a study showing poorer socioeconomic status is directly related to attribution with the same stats:
https://www.aamc.org/download/165418/data/aibvol9_no11.pdf.pdf

Here is stats showing lower MCAT/GPA mean much higher failure rate:
https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/2012mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf
You claim "MCAT+GPA" doesnt matter...well if you fail out how can you still be a "good student"?

Here is stats showing AA are accepted at a higher rate with lower stats:
https://www.aamc.org/download/157594/data/table25-b-mcatgpa-grid-black.pdf
vs
https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-w-mcatgpa-grid-white.pdf

You pulled the 50% of people take a year off number out of thin air, its complete hyperbole, and not true based on any stat shown by several studies. Furthermore we are talking about repeating...not taking a year off, which means that takes up 2 student spots and eliminates the output of that med school by 1 doctor. Also if the school is state run, the taxpayers are essentially paying more money to produce 1 doctor (by funding that extra year).

So lets add up the logic:
1. A higher percent of AA fail of out med school.
2. Lower GPA and MCAT are DIRECTLY predictive of failure.
3. Lower SES predicts a higher failure rate.
4. AA have a much much lower MCAT, GPA, and SES on average.

So this is obvious logic the reason why AA are failing at a higher rate.

You obvious ignored my full statement, I DO think there is a reason for AA to be in medicine in proportional numbers to the population which I explained in a prior post (you can also reference this article http://www.nyesma.org/documents/disparities.pdf), but if you try to state that they graduate at or near the rate of whites your making yourself look like a fool. Furthermore, I am arguing group stats, not about an individual person, so dont imply I am insulting any particular individual of any race. Rather I am validating the point that lowering the stats for a population has significant disadvantages.

I get this is a sensitive issue to you, but if you are becoming a physician you really should learn to be objective when overwhelming data is presented.

As an aside to everyone on this thread...am I the only one who sees both sides of this argument as valid points?

 

[flaahless]

You don't believe AA or a similar type of measure is being used and stand by that...how do you explain away the significant difference in objective measures, obviously it must be the over the top EC/research/etc. While that may be the case for some, I have trouble believing that overall, that is the only reason. So what is then?

You may not value that A+ in chemistry but one thing becomes clear from your post, you don't understand medicine these days. Test taking is a huge part of training from Steps 1-3 through specialty boards (I have 4 boards to take) before I am board certified. So yea, how you take tests as an undergrad is important because you are going to be taking them for a long time. You say, "Everyone wants to harp on the MCAT+GPA like that will make a better student :rolls eyes:. I don't care if you got a 12/1.5gpa. That's irrelevant when you're on your 2weeks of L&D nights. What matters most are the personal characteristics I mentioned earlier." Really...as someone who sees the residency process, I can tell you many programs filter based on step 1 scores before they get to those personal characteristics you highlight. Since MCAT/GPA correlate with Step, and step one of the biggest things used for competitive fields, I dont see how your arguement on the merits of personal characteristics holds up. How you handle 2 weeks of L+D nights might mean something if you are applying to OB, but if you're applying to Derm, Rads, Rad Onc, etc., from my experience we don't care.

I totally agree with you, boards are important. Residency program directors look at School, Step 1, honors. I didn't argue the insignificance of the Step exams in my posts because the Step exams are a reflection of your clinical knowledge, whereas the MCAT is a reflection of how well you've memorized the grignard reaction in undergrad (might have spelled that wrong, it's been a few years haha). And Honors clinically is not the same as honors in lecture-hall based courses ie: undergrad. Clinical honors is subjective and reflects professionalism, clinical competence, self-improvement, team work, punctuality etc...

I just finished my Anesthesia interviews, believe me, Step 1 is important. But Step 1 =/= MCAT. No verbal, no essay. Passages are case based. Sure there is a small correlation, but it's entirely a different beast. One that can be conquered with motivation and a Qbank. A sub 30 MCAT =/= a failed Step 1. Anecdote n=1 - 29 MCAT, 240 step 1, with a couple of Hs scattered along the way. Leave it to SDN and I should be the student version of Conrad Murray, not a competitive residency applicant. My point is the "strongly implied" notion on SDN that MCAT+GPA has a linear relationship to "quality" of med-student or potential doctor is profoundly naiive and ignorant.

As far as the AA argument goes, isn't the topic "Why so few blacks in medicine?" Why aren't we discussing that? Why am I forced to defend the merits of minorities against prejudiced premeds (and senior residents, haha, want to be all inclusive)? Ohh yeah, no one cares why there are so few blacks in medicine, they just care about why they didn't get into their dream school and want to vent about the 10 "underqualified" urms taking their spot in a class of 150+.

 

[flaahless]

If you are going to attack my numbers, you should at least have numbers yourself otherwise your argument is baseless at best.

From the AAMC showing AA are more likely to fail med school: https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/aibvol7no2.pdf

Here is a study showing poorer socioeconomic status is directly related to attribution with the same stats:
https://www.aamc.org/download/165418/data/aibvol9_no11.pdf.pdf

Here is stats showing lower MCAT/GPA mean much higher failure rate:
https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/2012mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf
You claim "MCAT+GPA" doesnt matter...well if you fail out how can you still be a "good student"?

Here is stats showing AA are accepted at a higher rate with lower stats:
https://www.aamc.org/download/157594/data/table25-b-mcatgpa-grid-black.pdf
vs
https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-w-mcatgpa-grid-white.pdf

You pulled the 50% of people take a year off number out of thin air, its complete hyperbole, and not true based on any stat shown by several studies. Furthermore we are talking about repeating...not taking a year off, which means that takes up 2 student spots and eliminates the output of that med school by 1 doctor. Also if the school is state run, the taxpayers are essentially paying more money to produce 1 doctor (by funding that extra year).

So lets add this up the logic:
1. A higher percent of AA fail of out med school.
2. Lower GPA and MCAT are DIRECTLY predictive of failure.
3. Lower SES predicts a higher failure rate.
4. AA have a much much lower MCAT, GPA, and SES on average.

So this is obvious logic the reason why AA are failing at a higher rate.

You obvious ignored my full statement, I DO think there is a reason for AA to be in medicine in proportional numbers to the population which I explained in a prior post (you can also reference this article http://www.nyesma.org/documents/disparities.pdf), but if you try to state that they graduate at or near the rate of whites your making yourself look like a fool. Furthermore, I am arguing group stats, not about an individual person, so dont imply I am insulting any particular individual of any race. Rather I am validating the point that lowering the stats for a population has significant disadvantages.

I get this is a sensitive issue to you, but if you are becoming a physician you really should learn to be objective when overwhelming data is presented.

As an aside to everyone on this thread...am I the only one who sees both sides of this argument as valid points?

1. Yes, you are Charlie Sheen. You are the only one with clear perspective. You also have tiger blood and adonis dna.

2. 50% is hyperbole? It's the number at MY school, not all US med students. Read what I wrote before arguing man. Goodness. Here is the quote: "Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing." What are you objecting? Nothing about that quote is arguable haha. Just arguing for no reason. Also, if you take a year off at my state funded school, the state doesn't pay for you.

3. I never said the objective numbers weren't lower. I said that doesn't mean you are less qualified student if you are admitted, or will be a worse doctor.

4. You took multiple thought leaps in your attempt to prove your rationale. Just because you go from A->B, B->C, C->D, doesn't mean you can go from A->D.

Instead of this thread addressing current social constructs, barriers to education and an anemic pipeline, SDNers would rather focus on "proving" why urms are underqualified and can't cut it. Why? Too blinded by prejudice to stay on topic? Just asking...

 

[shenanigi]

1. Yes, you are Charlie Sheen. You are the only one with clear perspective. You also have tiger blood and adonis dna.

2. 50% is hyperbole? It's the number at MY school, not all US med students. Read what I wrote before arguing man. Goodness. Here is the quote: "Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing." What are you objecting? Nothing about that quote is arguable haha. Just arguing for no reason. Also, if you take a year off at my state funded school, the state doesn't pay for you.

3. I never said the objective numbers weren't lower. I said that doesn't mean you are less qualified student if you are admitted, or will be a worse doctor.

4. You took multiple thought leaps in your attempt to prove your rationale. Just because you go from A->B, B->C, C->D, doesn't mean you can go from A->D.

Instead of this thread addressing current social constructs, barriers to education and an anemic pipeline, SDNers would rather focus on "proving" why urms are underqualified and can't cut it. Why? Too blinded by prejudice to stay on topic? Just asking...

 

[link2swim06]

1. Yes, you are Charlie Sheen. You are the only one with clear perspective. You also have tiger blood and adonis dna.

2. 50% is hyperbole? It's the number at MY school, not all US med students. Read what I wrote before arguing man. Goodness. Here is the quote: "Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing." What are you objecting? Nothing about that quote is arguable haha. Just arguing for no reason. Also, if you take a year off at my state funded school, the state doesn't pay for you.

3. I never said the objective numbers weren't lower. I said that doesn't mean you are less qualified student if you are admitted, or will be a worse doctor.

4. You took multiple thought leaps in your attempt to prove your rationale. Just because you go from A->B, B->C, C->D, doesn't mean you can go from A->D.

Instead of this thread addressing current social constructs, barriers to education and an anemic pipeline, SDNers would rather focus on "proving" why urms are underqualified and can't cut it. Why? Too blinded by prejudice to stay on topic? Just asking...

1. You claim its a "trend in medicine" that a bunch of people take a year off, while it may be a trend at your school, thats the exception. The majority doesn't take a year off.

2. The alternative to my "thought leaps" would be to say that unlike the general population of med students, it mainly the AAs with the high GPAs and MCATs that are failing out.

3. Less qualified i dont know, but more likely to fail absolutely if you had lower undergrad stats.

4. Finally people will be more willing to discuss reasons why AAs are not in medicine if you dont try to argue points which are ridiculous like the person with the 1.5 GPA is going to be fine. These points are making people call you out and cite the reasons against letting AAs with lower stats.

 

[flaahless]

1. You claim its a "trend in medicine" that a bunch of people take a year off, while it may be a trend at your school, thats the exception. The majority doesn't take a year off.

2. The alternative to my "thought leaps" would be to say that unlike the general population of med students, it mainly the AAs with the high GPAs and MCATs that are failing out.

3. Less qualified i dont know, but more likely to fail absolutely if you had lower undergrad stats.

4. Finally people will be more willing to discuss reasons why AAs are not in medicine if you dont try to argue points which are ridiculous like the person with the 1.5 GPA is going to be fine. These points are making people call you out and cite the reasons against letting AAs with lower stats.

1. My quote was impossible to argue. Just stop. It is common for ROADs (competitive specialty) applicants to take time off. It's not considered a bad thing. Especially if you get a publication or an extra degree during that year. Extra year does not =/= academic challenges. What exactly do you object?
2. Never said that, just illustrated that your argument was correlative and not causative.
4. Keep twisting words. Point is that undergrad stats are irrelevant in clinical situations. Of course this is a premed dominated forum (and preclinical med students) who typically give a ludicrous amount of importance to undergrad stats. But if you've gone through your clinical years and done your difficult rotations (surg trauma, OB night float, ICU, med sub I etc) you will likely agree that no one cares about undergrad, what matters is that you are there on time for sign out, have good patient rapport, are reliable and an integral member of the team. Arguing the insignificance of undergrad data to patient care is pointless if you haven't done it.

Lastly, you're right. This thread would have stayed on track had I not derailed it. </sarcasm> Haha yeah right, this thread was derailed from the jump. Any topic that has "Blacks" and "medicine" is fodder for an anti-affirmative action flame war where SDNers can spew their prejudiced drivel. It is what it is.

 

[link2swim06]

1. Yes, you are Charlie Sheen. You are the only one with clear perspective. You also have tiger blood and adonis dna.

2. 50% is hyperbole? It's the number at MY school, not all US med students. Read what I wrote before arguing man. Goodness. Here is the quote: "Nearly 50% of my class took time off, it's the trend in medicine. Especially if you want to match in a competitive specialty, or simply want to delay the destruction of the rest of your life. Time off is not a bad thing." What are you objecting? Nothing about that quote is arguable haha. Just arguing for no reason. Also, if you take a year off at my state funded school, the state doesn't pay for you.

3. I never said the objective numbers weren't lower. I said that doesn't mean you are less qualified student if you are admitted, or will be a worse doctor.

4. You took multiple thought leaps in your attempt to prove your rationale. Just because you go from A->B, B->C, C->D, doesn't mean you can go from A->D.

Instead of this thread addressing current social constructs, barriers to education and an anemic pipeline, SDNers would rather focus on "proving" why urms are underqualified and can't cut it. Why? Too blinded by prejudice to stay on topic? Just asking...

Oh and to add one point to add...these "tests" are not fun and games. They are directly correlated to patient outcomes and rate of misdiagnosis.

Here is the stats, less minorities become board certified and there is a both a correlation between being board certified + having a high board score and patient outcomes:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/9/961.full
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/11/989.short
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/13/1396

So I would argue being a high performing student absolutely correlates to becoming a better doctor. I think it makes sense that the person who can perform better on board certification exams would make the better physician in practice...and the research seems to back that.

 

[flaahless]

Oh and to add one point to add...these "tests" are not fun and games. They are directly correlated to patient outcomes and rate of misdiagnosis.

Here is the stats, less minorities become board certified and there is a both a correlation between being board certified + having a high board score and patient outcomes:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/9/961.full
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/11/989.short
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/13/1396

So I would argue being a high performing student absolutely correlates to becoming a better doctor. I think it makes sense that the person who can perform better on board certification exams would make the better physician in practice...and the research seems to back that.

I respect and appreciate your attempt at an evidence based argument. But it doesn't really work because it's a "correlation vs causation" fallacy. Intriguing. But still a fallacy.

Anyways. Time to watch some football. Go NINERS!!!

 

[link2swim06]

Whatever dude...the data is there, I think most people on this forum agree from all the data I presented...better undergrad students makes better med students who make better board scores which makes better patient outcomes. Obviously there are a million other factors to patient outcome...but I think it is clear this is one of them.

And I dont have the power to change admission policies and examine data...so its never going to a causative argument. There is obviously no data that will change your opinion...so I am done with this debate.

Again to the disparity, AA dont make it to med school bc inner city K-12 school suck and they arent provided with opportunities academically and they dont have the role models the majority of white students have...

 

[142348]

I respect and appreciate your attempt at an evidence based argument. But it doesn't really work because it's a "correlation vs causation" fallacy. Intriguing. But still a fallacy.

Anyways. Time to watch some football. Go NINERS!!!

As an aside, you realize most research is really examining correlation rather than causality. It usually takes a randomized controlled trial or a well designed case control type design which the majority of research is not. However, correlation based research is often considered hypothesis generating and presented at the vast majority of research meetings. The likelihood of doing real research on this topic is slim as I'm sure you know so the best data we have is correlative.

 

[142348]

I totally agree with you, boards are important. Residency program directors look at School, Step 1, honors. I didn't argue the insignificance of the Step exams in my posts because the Step exams are a reflection of your clinical knowledge, whereas the MCAT is a reflection of how well you've memorized the grignard reaction in undergrad (might have spelled that wrong, it's been a few years haha). And Honors clinically is not the same as honors in lecture-hall based courses ie: undergrad. Clinical honors is subjective and reflects professionalism, clinical competence, self-improvement, team work, punctuality etc...

I just finished my Anesthesia interviews, believe me, Step 1 is important. But Step 1 =/= MCAT. No verbal, no essay. Passages are case based. Sure there is a small correlation, but it's entirely a different beast. One that can be conquered with motivation and a Qbank. A sub 30 MCAT =/= a failed Step 1. Anecdote n=1 - 29 MCAT, 240 step 1, with a couple of Hs scattered along the way. Leave it to SDN and I should be the student version of Conrad Murray, not a competitive residency applicant. My point is the "strongly implied" notion on SDN that MCAT+GPA has a linear relationship to "quality" of med-student or potential doctor is profoundly naiive and ignorant.

As far as the AA argument goes, isn't the topic "Why so few blacks in medicine?" Why aren't we discussing that? Why am I forced to defend the merits of minorities against prejudiced premeds (and senior residents, haha, want to be all inclusive)? Ohh yeah, no one cares why there are so few blacks in medicine, they just care about why they didn't get into their dream school and want to vent about the 10 "underqualified" urms taking their spot in a class of 150+.

You just don't seem to get it. It's not about the material tested on the MCAT which you are right has limited value but the ability to take a large amount of information, process it and memorize what is necessary. Sure there's no written, or verbal on the boards but test taking skills are still required. You provide an n=1 that shows no correlation but multiple publications with significantly larger numbers of students does show a correlation between MCAT scores and Step scores. You asserted previously that a student with a poor MCAT score who got into med school could simply ramp it up and do well on the boards, any evidence beyond your anecdotal story. when talking about rotation grades you state "Clinical honors is subjective and reflects professionalism, clinical competence, self-improvement, team work, punctuality etc... " While you are right to a degree, fund of knowledge/ability to recall that knowledge when put under pressure is a huge part of how I have often graded students when asked in my training; I know med students can kiss ass and play the overachiever card and it means nothing. Knowledge and how to take care of patients does and the data supports that those with higher MCAT/GPA in undergrad have higher step scores, which translates to greater funds of knowledge.

You can sit here and vent about how the thread was derailed, I'm not sure who started that but I replied. It's obvious you feel strongly but you seem to have such tunnel vision that you don't even entertain discussion and rather attempt to belittle those that challenge your assertions. You comments assume those that disagree with you are part of the racial majority and wealthy. FYI, Im a minority and a child of two immigrants who came to this country.

 

[DoctaJay]

No one seems to answering the OPs question anymore . Let's get back on subject and away from discussions of AA, which are relegated to the sociopolitical forum only. This is an official warning.

 

[FearlessHyena]

I agree with you, there are always going to be candidates from every race with lower numbers than the average due to other subjective factors. I also agree with "URM's are held to lower standards numerically. This can't be argued." Where I disagree is with your statement " the majority needs to understand that many of these kids offer unique experiences other than just skin color, which the majority ignores." How do you quantify these experiences? Does growing up poor and volunteering in a underserved area for one applicant trump an internship at the Pasteur Institute for example that another applicant got into and that their parents could afford to pay for? i dont think there is a "fair" way to answer that. Further, I think it's flawed to assume that overall, URM's have more "unique experiences" whereas the data consistently demonstrates that URM's have lower objective scores (GPA/MCAT per AAMC data

My point Wagy is that if you look at the few URM's who apply to top schools, you will see that URM's such as my self with numbers comparable to white/Asians do not always see the greatest success. There is a poster who had a 31 and 3.46 from Dartmouth. He got in everywhere. Supposedly, his ec's and personal statement were epic. My point is that my numbers are in the 99 percentile for URM's, but I have not had as much success with top schools as URM applicants with significantly lower numbers. I know applying late hurt but still.

So, I was pointing out that schools do hold URM's to lower standards. However, it seems that if they are going to accept a URM with a 29 and 3.4 as Vandy did and not me with a 38 3.6 then the former must have shown service to the underserved. I did not. In closing, I should have clarified that schools are willing to take a chance on URM students who have displayed service to the poor as evidence that they will return to serve them once they are physicians. I did not mean to imply that URM's have better ec's than their white/asian counterparts. My point was that these schools must have seen something in their ec's to overlook their numbers, a fact that is overlooked by the majority.

Now, whether or not they will actually serve their demographic is another story. A lot do primary care but is that due to lower performance and no options or a general interest? Wagy, I appreciate your manner in which you have discussed this issue as well as Link2swim.

I should have clarified that the ec's that schools expect from minority applicants are probably different than their white/asian counterparts. Schools are concerned or at least pretend to be concerned with increasing the number of minority doctors who can practice in underserved areas. So, if they feel that a kid with a 29 and 3.4 will, perhaps they are more willing to take a chance on him/her, which is a fact missed by people. Now, I personally don't think that they should lower standards so significantly in order to do this. There are other manners to get physicians to practice in underserved areas. I don't think people would mind doing so for 3-4 years in exchange for a repayment of their student loans.

In closing, my main point was that one shouldn't say someone got in just because he/she is a URM. They should say that it helped (a lot). One's skin color along with experiences/activities does make them unique. So, with regard to that, a lot of URM candidates have a lot to offer. The issue at hand is whether this "uniqueness" justifies a significant lowering of standards. In my opinion it does not but needs to be taken on a case by case basis. My big point is that being black doesn't just get you in. It helps but you have to offer other attributes. I'm not saying these attributes are better than white/Asians, but they need to be acknowledged as playing a role. You are correct in that we can't quantify them, but they play a role and no matter how small this still needs to be considered. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been rejected from Uchicago when a Black female who also applied late in got accepted with a 29 and 3.64. So, Uchicago saw something in her that I didn't offer. She probably isn't the best example as she is female and I male. But if I'm not mistaken, black males are almost extinct at medical schools and something like 2/3 of Black students who matriculate are female.

My long 2 cents.

 

[New Vocab]

One poster here had the temerity to suggest blacks are "inherently violent", a qualitative phrase he made without any evidential substantiation whatsoever. Such slipshod racism should be vigorously condemned among the intelligentsia here, not quietly condoned as the lack of poster outcry might suggest.

The question of whether the origin of fewer blacks in medicine stems from their generally more deleterious environment relative to other groups is all but resolved for thinking minds. However, the a priori assertion that blacks are undeserving of their benefits is not.

This is a question of sociopolitics, not medicine, and the two should not be conflated.

 

[Sailor Senshi Dermystify]

My point Wagy is that if you look at the few URM's who apply to top schools, you will see that URM's such as my self with numbers comparable to white/Asians do not always see the greatest success. There is a poster who had a 31 and 3.46 from Dartmouth. He got in everywhere. Supposedly, his ec's and personal statement were epic. My point is that my numbers are in the 99 percentile for URM's, but I have not had as much success with top schools as URM applicants with significantly lower numbers. I know applying late hurt but still.

So, I was pointing out that schools do hold URM's to lower standards. However, it seems that if they are going to accept a URM with a 29 and 3.4 as Vandy did and not me with a 38 3.6 then the former must have shown service to the underserved. I did not. In closing, I should have clarified that schools are willing to take a chance on URM students who have displayed service to the poor as evidence that they will return to serve them once they are physicians. I did not mean to imply that URM's have better ec's than their white/asian counterparts. My point was that these schools must have seen something in their ec's to overlook their numbers, a fact that is overlooked by the majority.

Now, whether or not they will actually serve their demographic is another story. A lot do primary care but is that due to lower performance and no options or a general interest? Wagy, I appreciate your manner in which you have discussed this issue as well as Link2swim.

I should have clarified that the ec's that schools expect from minority applicants are probably different than their white/asian counterparts. Schools are concerned or at least pretend to be concerned with increasing the number of minority doctors who can practice in underserved areas. So, if they feel that a kid with a 29 and 3.4 will, perhaps they are more willing to take a chance on him/her, which is a fact missed by people. Now, I personally don't think that they should lower standards so significantly in order to do this. There are other manners to get physicians to practice in underserved areas. I don't think people would mind doing so for 3-4 years in exchange for a repayment of their student loans.

In closing, my main point was that one shouldn't say someone got in just because he/she is a URM. They should say that it helped (a lot). One's skin color along with experiences/activities does make them unique. So, with regard to that, a lot of URM candidates have a lot to offer. The issue at hand is whether this "uniqueness" justifies a significant lowering of standards. In my opinion it does not but needs to be taken on a case by case basis. My big point is that being black doesn't just get you in. It helps but you have to offer other attributes. I'm not saying these attributes are better than white/Asians, but they need to be acknowledged as playing a role. You are correct in that we can't quantify them, but they play a role and no matter how small this still needs to be considered. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been rejected from Uchicago when a Black female who also applied late in got accepted with a 29 and 3.64. So, Uchicago saw something in her that I didn't offer. She probably isn't the best example as she is female and I male. But if I'm not mistaken, black males are almost extinct at medical schools and something like 2/3 of Black students who matriculate are female.

My long 2 cents.

I feel that other than her ECs maybe her personal statement, recommendations, or ecs were better than yours. Maybe she has connections and was networking with the faculty and staff at Vandy. I know a lot of schools have partnership with medical schools. She could have attend a top HBCU and wanted a minority student that represents one of these schools. It could have been anything really. I do think minorities have an advantage during the medical school process but we do have to work HARDER because people doubt our potential and abilities. Plus, there are at most 15 URMs in each medical class, so I don't understand who spot we are taking. Why is there even an issue? Do you know that they have a plethora of medical recruitment fairs for minorities, such as SNMA (this year in Atlanta) and the AAMC Recruitment Fair? Why? Because there is not enough of us in this field and most patients will feel comfortable talking to someone who can relate to them.

I am sure you will get into AMAZING schools Fearless, so don't worry about it. ^_^

 

[mTOR]

Oh and to add one point to add...these "tests" are not fun and games. They are directly correlated to patient outcomes and rate of misdiagnosis.

Here is the stats, less minorities become board certified and there is a both a correlation between being board certified + having a high board score and patient outcomes:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/9/961.full
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/11/989.short
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/13/1396

So I would argue being a high performing student absolutely correlates to becoming a better doctor.

From what I've seen, MCAT + GPA correlate best with pre-clinical performance and Step 1. However, professional clinical competency typically correlates best with Step 2. Obviously, there are correlations between and among all 3 (i.e., pre-admissions numbers, Step 1, and Step 2), but what's certainly clear is the overall pattern suggested by the literature is that the greater temporal distance between two different indices of measurement, the less they correlate. This should hardly be surprising, especially given the level of relevance of a test to a person's eventual profession is expected to increase the closer that test requirement timing abuts independent practice in that profession (and, likewise, decreased relevance with increased distance). This is important as it suggests numbers-based admissions criteria (high distance with low content-relevance) has inherent limitations in its predictive power and, I would argue, consequently should not be used prescriptively.

But then again, I'd also argue other implications, like say this (from http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=866508 ):

[medical school]can be boiled down to PA-school like 2 years and can be done right out of high school (followed up with residency, of course, which IMHO is where the most enduring and most relevant training begins).

lulz.

Anyways, another reason to be skeptical of numbers-dominant admissions criteria is the fact studies show such criteria selects for the socially inept. Just sayin.

 

[MarineDocFl]

Oh boy, you guys are nuking this.

Look, there is no easy answer to this, as there are no easy answers to anything of significance, but as a 31yr old black male, let me contribute.

1) As a whole, public schools are horrible. There are some bright spots, and deny it or no, they are in the more affluent neighborhoods where the vast majority of African-Americans and Hispanics are not privy to. I grew up in the south, as you can probably tell by my screenname. I have a 2yr old daughter, and my worst fear is abandoning her to the Florida Education System, primarily at the middle school, high school level.

How do you combat that? You can go my route. One of my movtivations is to make sure that I am in a place professionally and economically where she will get the best possible education, therefore setting her up to withstand the rigors of college life and fully utilize her potential. Luckly enough, I have the brain power, the military, and the drive to accomplish that. Most of my brethern do not.

2) The cultural perspective is a valid one, though, in my opinion, over-generalized. There are a plethora of assumptions there that could be forgiven because most of the ones commenting on "black culture" has never lived it nor experienced it outside of their televisions. Not all black people want to be rappers or feel that a basketball and some nice sneakers will be their ticket out of their status. Not all black children grow up wanting to live the way they live now. Those of us that are trapped in urbanized neighborhoods with a piss poor education system are desperate to get out. They are drowning.

If you were unable to swim because no one taught you, and you were floundering around, fighting for breath, would you not grasp the first pole offered to you, and wildly pull and tug, trying to get out and survive? It is a lot like that. Unfortunately, the long arm of quality education and professionals that give a damn about them are much shorter then the longer arms of "get rich quick schemes."

I said all of that to say this: little black and hispanic children, when they raise their hand in elementary school to answer the question "what do you want to be when you grow up," the answer is rarely Lil Wayne. They want to be doctors, lawyers, firemen, somebody...heros. Do not be so quick to judge them.

3) The old adage "birds of a feather flock together" is applicable here. Imagine growing up poor. Imagine the constriction that it would place on you, feeling that is no hope, no where to go. The schools don't care about you, only their own funding. Your parents are struggling to feed you, let alone suppliment your education. Your friends are too busy trying to LOOK more than they are and "hussling" to carve a sliver of the crap pie they were fed. There are drugs and easy money everywhere, and the only exposure to life you are given is desperation. Then there is you.

You want to be a doctor.

How?

Sure, it has been done before, but the amount of kinetic energy needed is immense. All of the potential in the world will never be realized without someone lifting them up in order for them to soar. The bad news is, that happens a lot movies and on television. In real life, thousands will be born into a life where that is not their reality, and it is a problem that the minorities are more acutely attuned with.



It is something that would take more pages to completely communicate then you care to read, but it is not as cut and dry as we would like it to be...empirical data fights or no.

 

[management]

easy answer?

slavery > jim crow era > educational & financial disadvantages

Hook, line, and sinker...(I think it's sinker, or is it sink her....oh well).

Nonetheless, we must fight a harder fight. The older I get, and from viewing the world in the eyes of a black man, the more I understand this quote:
'You gotta fight twice as hard to get half as far".

It's hard to test better than other students who already have the answers to the test. But you gotta work hard and find a way.

Also, I must say, we don't have enough black doctors helping other pre-meds on their track to becoming the same. We somewhere forget the 'each one teach one' principle that helped us get where we needed to be. Thus, we have many ill-informed black pre-meds who are shooting themselves in the feet in regards to the process. This needs to change.

Now I'm not going to start listing off stats and continue the ignorant bashing of AA, because a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to that subject, but I will say this:

If you're an URM, and you want to become a doctor, then do it, and eff any reason why you shouldn't be one. Then, help another 'DESERVING' URM out.

 

[2012mdc]

Hook, line, and sinker...(I think it's sinker, or is it sink her....oh well).

Nonetheless, we must fight a harder fight. The older I get, and from viewing the world in the eyes of a black man, the more I understand this quote:
'You gotta fight twice as hard to get half as far".

It's hard to test better than other students who already have the answers to the test. But you gotta work hard and find a way.

Also, I must say, we don't have enough black doctors helping other pre-meds on their track to becoming the same. We somewhere forget the 'each one teach one' principle that helped us get where we needed to be. Thus, we have many ill-informed black pre-meds who are shooting themselves in the feet in regards to the process. This needs to change.

Now I'm not going to start listing off stats and continue the ignorant bashing of AA, because a lot of people are ignorant when it comes to that subject, but I will say this:

If you're an URM, and you want to become a doctor, then do it, and eff any reason why you shouldn't be one. Then, help another 'DESERVING' URM out.

Definitely agree with this. In med school I've been involved in SNMA HPREP and MAPS. Also have tutored younger med students.

When I'm an attending I plan to be a mentor (offical or unofficial) whether or not I'm in academics.

Another thing that's important is really busting your butt when you get to medical school. Excelling and leading by example is another way to keep/widen the door open for future URM's. The P=MD mentality irks me from any race but especially from URM's.

 

[142348]

Oh boy, you guys are nuking this.

Look, there is no easy answer to this, as there are no easy answers to anything of significance, but as a 31yr old black male, let me contribute.

1) As a whole, public schools are horrible. There are some bright spots, and deny it or no, they are in the more affluent neighborhoods where the vast majority of African-Americans and Hispanics are not privy to. I grew up in the south, as you can probably tell by my screenname. I have a 2yr old daughter, and my worst fear is abandoning her to the Florida Education System, primarily at the middle school, high school level.

How do you combat that? You can go my route. One of my movtivations is to make sure that I am in a place professionally and economically where she will get the best possible education, therefore setting her up to withstand the rigors of college life and fully utilize her potential. Luckly enough, I have the brain power, the military, and the drive to accomplish that. Most of my brethern do not.

2) The cultural perspective is a valid one, though, in my opinion, over-generalized. There are a plethora of assumptions there that could be forgiven because most of the ones commenting on "black culture" has never lived it nor experienced it outside of their televisions. Not all black people want to be rappers or feel that a basketball and some nice sneakers will be their ticket out of their status. Not all black children grow up wanting to live the way they live now. Those of us that are trapped in urbanized neighborhoods with a piss poor education system are desperate to get out. They are drowning.

If you were unable to swim because no one taught you, and you were floundering around, fighting for breath, would you not grasp the first pole offered to you, and wildly pull and tug, trying to get out and survive? It is a lot like that. Unfortunately, the long arm of quality education and professionals that give a damn about them are much shorter then the longer arms of "get rich quick schemes."

I said all of that to say this: little black and hispanic children, when they raise their hand in elementary school to answer the question "what do you want to be when you grow up," the answer is rarely Lil Wayne. They want to be doctors, lawyers, firemen, somebody...heros. Do not be so quick to judge them.

3) The old adage "birds of a feather flock together" is applicable here. Imagine growing up poor. Imagine the constriction that it would place on you, feeling that is no hope, no where to go. The schools don't care about you, only their own funding. Your parents are struggling to feed you, let alone suppliment your education. Your friends are too busy trying to LOOK more than they are and "hussling" to carve a sliver of the crap pie they were fed. There are drugs and easy money everywhere, and the only exposure to life you are given is desperation. Then there is you.

You want to be a doctor.

How?

Sure, it has been done before, but the amount of kinetic energy needed is immense. All of the potential in the world will never be realized without someone lifting them up in order for them to soar. The bad news is, that happens a lot movies and on television. In real life, thousands will be born into a life where that is not their reality, and it is a problem that the minorities are more acutely attuned with.



It is something that would take more pages to completely communicate then you care to read, but it is not as cut and dry as we would like it to be...empirical data fights or no.

I appreciate what your saying and agree with some of it but some it is the nature of the beast.

As for number 1, this is the reality of having a public education system as it is currently constructed. I know of many families of lesser means who found small cramped abysmal apartments, had children live with family members, etc. to get them in the right school district rather than the crappy one they were destined for. This is the impetus parents should have for their children as this is the only thing that will drive school districts to improve. They are often funded by the number of pupils and if they lose pupils they will be forced to compete. I grew up with 2 immigrants for parents who spent as much money as they could to get their children educated. Why shouldn't that be the expectation of all parents, to put their childs future ahead of anything else and if not possible, then not to have children. Having a child is more than simply putting a roof over their head and food on the table, its an obligation to protect and push them to be educated, and be better of than you are.

Further, living in a capitalistic society this part of the way things go; those with money and power are able to give their children the means to be successful, if you want to catch up you have to work harder and longer to level the playing field rather than have an expectation that society should level the playing field for you. my parents gave me what they could and my plan as a soon to be attending is to give my children everything they need to have a leg up on the average student so they have an easier road.

As for the cultural perspective, Scoop Jackson wrote a very interesting article on this phenomenon on ESPN's page 2 website a year or two ago. Cultural stereotypes aside, i would argue it's a parents and family job to ensure that their children go beyond the B.S stereotypes, stay on the right track, and succeed. It's easy to say that this leads to a perpetual spiral of repetitive actions but the impetus should be on the individual rather than society as a whole.

 

[bigloley]

I find it humorous, or rather pathetic and despicable that such ridiculous BS is spread on this site as gospel. This thread was to address the anemic numbers of black folks in medicine (limited access to education, small pool of applicants and dwindling pipeline)... But in SDN language any thread that mentions minorities actually means - "free-for-all onslaught on why affirmative action is unfair and medical student spots are going to unqualified prison inmates ie: URMs, rather than the deserving, neurotic, self-entitled and prejudiced children of the upper 20% and racial majority."

So true - almost every post relating to anything URM related becomes a ****show with masked racism by premeds here. It does make me sad to see that many of these people will become my colleagues in the future

 

[originoom]

let's just be honest, blacks are stupid.

LOL..Lets just be honest, you aint got the balls to say that to their face....