how to get into med school 101

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think this Stanford University article sums up things rather nicely.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

[forgetful]

I think this Stanford University article sums up things rather nicely.

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448

I'm not sure what it is suppose to sum up.  That occasionally this system doesn't work, and a minority student from a wealthy background gets in instead of a poor white student.  Yeah, that'll happen, no system will ever be perfect to provide equal opportunity.  One is best playing an average. 

If Universities would be willing to replace affirmative action with a "disadvantaged action" and also make all applications blind (names and addresses), the system would be better.  But they won't do that.

If you get rid of affirmative action, what you will see happen is that there will be bias against minorities, but based on name (race) and address (also somewhat race). It is already well documented to be a fact in hiring decisions. 

The fact is right now, the basis for getting into universities/med school, grades/scores/service, is biased against underprivileged populations and are not a valid measure of ability, but often rather privilege. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure what it is suppose to sum up.  That occasionally this system doesn't work, and a minority student from a wealthy background gets in instead of a poor white student.  Yeah, that'll happen, no system will ever be perfect to provide equal opportunity.  One is best playing an average. 

If Universities would be willing to replace affirmative action with a "disadvantaged action" and also make all applications blind (names and addresses), the system would be better.  But they won't do that.

If you get rid of affirmative action, what you will see happen is that there will be bias against minorities, but based on name (race) and address (also somewhat race). It is already well documented to be a fact in hiring decisions. 

The fact is right now, the basis for getting into universities/med school, grades/scores/service, is biased against underprivileged populations and are not a valid measure of ability, but often rather privilege. 

I think the authors points were very clear.  AA diminishes the accomplishments of minorities because people question if they truly deserved to be there, it also prevents qualified people from gaining admission because they are the wrong race, and it keeps the evils of racism going.  Furthermore, much like "global warming" is now "climate change", AA was about reversing discrimination has become promoting diversity...which is fundamentally backward.  It implies diversity only comes through race and furthermore, that all people of one race must think similarly which is why the system encourage more acceptance into colleges to promote this so called diversity. WTH!  Diversity should not be sourced by the color of one's skin, and most certainly all peoples of any particular race, creed, ethnicity, etc think all alike.

No system is perfect, but if we want a color blind society as Dr. King pushed so hard for, we need to act like it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

[jesmu84]

Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Racism will almost Always exist. I get that it shouldnt and it would be great if everyone made every decision without considering race, political affiliation, etc. But it also doesn't seem very realistic. How can you be open to ideas that are good but unrealistic in some cases (complete meritocracy) but not others ( unions being a good thing)?

[reinko]

Chief Justice Roberts stated the obvious: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Curious on your opinion, what about non-racial based systems?  Like if colleges specifically target students who are 1st generation?  Are they biased towards families with parents who have college degrees?  What about targeting low income kids?  Colleges acting classist?  Admissions points based on geography?  I imagine MU still gives "admission" points, to kids that graduated from Jesuit high schools?  How is that fair?

[forgetful]

I think the authors points were very clear.  AA diminishes the accomplishments of minorities because people question if they truly deserved to be there, it also prevents qualified people from gaining admission because they are the wrong race, and it keeps the evils of racism going.  Furthermore, much like "global warming" is now "climate change", AA was about reversing discrimination has become promoting diversity...which is fundamentally backward.  It implies diversity only comes through race and furthermore, that all people of one race must think similarly which is why the system encourage more acceptance into colleges to promote this so called diversity. WTH!  Diversity should not be sourced by the color of one's skin, and most certainly all peoples of any particular race, creed, ethnicity, etc think all alike.

No system is perfect, but if we want a color blind society as Dr. King pushed so hard for, we need to act like it.

If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem.  That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there.  Do those people do the same when they see someone who is wealthy, that they may have gotten in based on Daddy's checkbook? 

There are a million exemptions to being qualified on test scores to get into a University.  It is not that merit based of a process and Affirmative action may not even be the biggest player in the issue. 

And as I said in my very first post, a lot of AA is overcoming historical economic barriers.  For non-minorities there is preference for first generation college students (same idea). 

The selection criteria for college is more often based on pure economic issues than actual ability (see my first post), often the most apt can get left behind because of economics.

As a curious side note, do you also have a problem with accepting students/recruiting students based only on their ability to pay full book rate on tuition and fees?

[Pakuni]

If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem.  That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there.  

This. So much this.
If you  see a minority in a high-ranking position or elite institution and begin thinking they're potentially less deserving of being there, the problem is you, not Affirmative Action.

[Benny B]

This. So much this.
If you  see a minority in a high-ranking position or elite institution and begin thinking they're potentially less deserving of being there, the problem is you, not Affirmative Action.

What about asking why they're there after you've spoken to or dealt with them?  Is that any better/worse?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Racism will almost Always exist. I get that it shouldnt and it would be great if everyone made every decision without considering race, political affiliation, etc. But it also doesn't seem very realistic. How can you be open to ideas that are good but unrealistic in some cases (complete meritocracy) but not others ( unions being a good thing)?

I don't disagree, but that is partly what I was saying to Pakuni yesterday.  Under this understanding then, AA needs to continue in perpetuity....one racist policy to help "cure" others because "it will almost always exist".  Put more bluntly, we'll battle racism with racism forever.  Awesome.

How are unions a good thing in today's day and age?  I don't see how an entity that rewards based on tenure and not merit or skill as a good thing.  A ponzi scheme type structure that protects based on seniority.  I'll need more clarity to answer your question, as I don't understand your comment. 

[Pakuni]

What about asking why they're there after you've spoken to or dealt with them?  Is that any better/worse?

I don't understand your question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Curious on your opinion, what about non-racial based systems?  Like if colleges specifically target students who are 1st generation?  Are they biased towards families with parents who have college degrees?  What about targeting low income kids?  Colleges acting classist?  Admissions points based on geography?  I imagine MU still gives "admission" points, to kids that graduated from Jesuit high schools?  How is that fair?

I don't support any of it.  I don't find it fair one iota.  I thing legacy stuff is absolute horsecrap and should be removed.  It's not fair and I don't support it.

I think you should be assigned a number, the school should not know your gender, your race, where you live, what your parents did.   You should be evaluated based on how you did in high school, your test scores, your extra curricular activities.  You meet the requirements or you don't.  Now, if you want to say 10% of your student body will be wait listed and admitted based on other criteria, I'm all ears, but to say someone should have a better chance to get in because daddy went to MU, because Julie is from Alaska and we don't have enough Alaskans, because James is African American, or because Sally's parents are on the lower status of income is something I don't support for the initial acceptance of kids trying to get into school.

Reverse racism, or quotas that deny people that meet every requirement of admission but are not accepted is equally racist \ selective based on filtering traits that people complain about in the first place.  Do you have the chops or not?  Do you work hard, are you a good student, etc, etc.  If not, there are other options for you, but don't deny perfectly solid kids that chance........now comes the classic comeback "but those kids will have other options available to them"....or  "the poor white male, he's so discriminated against".  Like clockwork.    Thing is, that kid if he\she is good enough to go to Michigan, or UCLA, or wherever, should not be penalized because of how they were brought into this world...and that works across all races, ethnicities, etc.  Nor should they be penalized or rewarded based on how much money their family has or whether pops went to the same school.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you are looking at a minority and questioning whether they truly deserve to be there, that is part of the problem.  That implies a built in assumption that they can't be qualified to be there.  Do those people do the same when they see someone who is wealthy, that they may have gotten in based on Daddy's checkbook? 

There are a million exemptions to being qualified on test scores to get into a University.  It is not that merit based of a process and Affirmative action may not even be the biggest player in the issue. 

And as I said in my very first post, a lot of AA is overcoming historical economic barriers.  For non-minorities there is preference for first generation college students (same idea). 

The selection criteria for college is more often based on pure economic issues than actual ability (see my first post), often the most apt can get left behind because of economics.

As a curious side note, do you also have a problem with accepting students/recruiting students based only on their ability to pay full book rate on tuition and fees?

But that is EXACTLY what these programs have done.  That is no one's fault except for those policy makers that created these policies. 

Question for you....you are in a burning building and you can't move, you are hurt.  You magically have the ability to pick a firefighter.  Your choice is a 6'3" guy that met the physical standards of picking up your 200lb body or carrying 100lbs of gear, or the 5'1" woman that went through a different set of standards?  Now, I expect the firefighters here to say "well, the 5'1" gal isn't going to go into the building anyway"....but she IS taking up a position on the force.  Back in the day when 100% of the firefighters met the physical requirements is now diluted because of the requirements have changed.  Is that what we want?  Is that good policy or good politics?  Shouldn't we as citizens know that everyone in the department passed those physical tests and\or the tests didn't have to be diluted.  Isn't that fair to the taxpaying public to know what they are getting?

If I'm going to be operated on, do I want the guy that was top of his class, was a no brainer in his\her medical school? Or the person that was borderline, but there was a spot for them.   So on and so forth.  When I choose a doctor, I always look to see where they went to school, what their rating is, etc.  That's my health.  I could care less what race, gender, or ethnicity they are....can they do the job?

These very policies have put those questions into the ecosystem and they flat out should not, but they do.  Those questions would not even be asked or contemplated if you knew right from the start that EVERYONE met the same requirement, but since not everyone is required to meet the same levels of requirements, it is out there.  That's a shame...it's not fair to anyone.

[Eldon]

I want to say that there was a supreme court case (brooks bollinger at michigan state law school or something) and they found that schools can only use race in admissions as a "plus factor." So if the schools have quotas, it's their own doing, not imposed by the government.

Do you think government shoud intervene and have a say in who the school accepts/rejects?

[rocket surgeon]

I find it a tad ironic that you're OK with life being unfair for many minority groups and the poor thanks to historical and systematic oppression, yet you rage on about the "unfairness" of Affirmative Action or the wealthy paying a larger share of their incomes to taxes.
Apparently when life is unfair to the poor and non white, tough luck. When life is unfair to the white and privileged, it's an outrage.

apples and atom-bombs-paying a majority of the taxes and affirmative action?  sorry-paying 95% of the taxes-the numbers don't lie.  how long are we to lift poor people, down on their luck people, out of their "life" dilemmas? we've been doing it for generations of families-it's become their profession and where has it got them? it was meant to be a safety net. al and jesse enjoy it though=thars gold in them thar hills.  but as usual, i digress

as sultan will say-STRAWMEN
as brandy will say-RACIST

[Spotcheck Billy]

nm

[Benny B]

I don't understand your question.

Example: If you encounter a CEO who is black and make no judgment about the person, but then once you get to know him and find that his business acumen is absolutely horrible, you consequently think that he has no business being a CEO and must be there because of AA, is that racist?

[Pakuni]

Example: If you encounter a CEO who is black and make no judgment about the person, but then once you get to know him and find that his business acumen is absolutely horrible, you consequently think that he has no business being a CEO and must be there because of AA, is that racist?

I don't think I'd make the leap that the black person in question got the job because he is black.
Plenty of white CEOs have been shown to have horrible business acumen, and I've never assumed that they landed the job because they were white.

[Benny B]

I don't think I'd make the leap that the black person in question got the job because he is black.
Plenty of white CEOs have been shown to have horrible business acumen, and I've never assumed that they landed the job because they were white.

So let's say the reality is that the CEO got the job because his father is the chairman of the company.  Can we at least assume his father is black, or is that racist?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I find it a tad ironic that you're OK with life being unfair for many minority groups and the poor thanks to historical and systematic oppression, yet you rage on about the "unfairness" of Affirmative Action or the wealthy paying a larger share of their incomes to taxes.
Apparently when life is unfair to the poor and non white, tough luck. When life is unfair to the white and privileged, it's an outrage.

Decide "fair".  How about the person that worked their ass off to get to their lot in life vs the person that did jack crap, lazy arse that put themselves in their lot in life.  Is that someone's fault?  Is that "fair"?

Fair comes in a lot of shapes and forms.  Unfair does as well.  I'm all for fairness.  Everyone should pay taxes...that's fair.  We should judge people by the content of their chacters...that's fair.  We should admit people to college based on merit...that's fair.   Etc.

I'm all about fairness.  I'm all about eliminating racism.  Seems like you are FOR racist policies and for unfairness.  Beautiful.  Always a great solution to promote those two.

[forgetful]

Decide "fair".  How about the person that worked their ass off to get to their lot in life vs the person that did jack crap, lazy arse that put themselves in their lot in life.  Is that someone's fault?  Is that "fair"?

Fair comes in a lot of shapes and forms.  Unfair does as well.  I'm all for fairness.  Everyone should pay taxes...that's fair.  We should judge people by the content of their chacters...that's fair.  We should admit people to college based on merit...that's fair.   Etc.

I'm all about fairness.  I'm all about eliminating racism.  Seems like you are FOR racist policies and for unfairness.  Beautiful.  Always a great solution to promote those two.

How do we judge merit for college admittance or Med school admittance?

[ChicosBailBonds]

How do we judge merit for college admittance or Med school admittance?

I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most.  MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.   

Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots.  Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.

The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.

[Pakuni]

I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most.  MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.   

Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots.  Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.

The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.

And yet there is little evidence - and, in fact, some contrary evidence - that links MCAT scores to the quality of a physician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html

https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent?id=uuid:f778259e-5078-4339-9d18-47385c1d6430&ds=DATA_FILE

[forgetful]

I would base it on established benchmarks across the board for most.  MCAT scores, course load, grades in those courses, etc.   

Have a separate pool of candidates that don't meet those standards for a deeper analysis, let's call it 10% or 15% of the slots.  Further analysis to see if they are adequate candidates based on other criteria.

The idea today that one person can have a strong GPA, very good MCAT score and NOT get in, but someone with a weaker GPA, weaker course load, weaker MCAT is allowed to get in because of a political policy is ridiculous.

As Pakuni already mentions, the above criteria have very little bearing on the quality of doctor.  What you are describing as the established benchmarks are more often a measure of the financial well being of the students. 

As I mentioned in my first post, high MCAT scores require very expensive (thousands of dollars) prep courses that teach you how to beat the test.  Similarly, wealthy students are spending $10k plus on tutors to ensure they get top grades in their courses, where again, these expensive tutors often have test info to help them beat the test. These same students buy test banks off the internet etc, to further improve their grades.

The result are individuals that on paper look great, but in some cases make terrible physicians, meanwhile, less wealthy students who actually are better prepared are not scoring as well.

I offer a former student of mine as an example.  She is brilliant, I would gladly send my children to her as a physician.  She couldn't afford the expensive MCAT prep courses and tried to prepare on her own, while working part time to pay bills.  She didn't score well enough to get into any respected med schools.  I payed for an MCAT prep course for her.  She scored well enough to get in anywhere in the country. 

Test scores have become a measure of wealth.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Well off middle-aged white guys trying to make themselves out to be society's victims. It would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing. Don't you guys have anything better to do with your time?