I never made any point against this.. All I am saying is that a 7 hour test and 4 years of class performances, while not encompassing for sure, is a far better indicator on if you will be a good physician than the color tone of your skin lmao

not really, some "high stats" people have absolutely zero people skills and that cause more harm than good

This is my opinion: high stats could be important as there is some correlation to work ethic (correlation doesn't equate to causation). I think experiences are also really important, but I don't believe race should be the factor because in a race-based admissions, that is inherently racist to favor one race over another. However, I think experiences will tell a lot about the individual and will bring in the DIVERSITY that most schools wants, in terms of thoughts, perspectives, and approaches to challenges. There's not really another "more" ethical way to look at this

This doesn’t mean bad students are getting in. Overall it is still good gpa and MCAT scores. The argument is will a couple points on the MCAT make someone a better doctor and the studies don’t support that. Patients who are part of a minority group have better outcomes when treated by similar doctors. Of course that’s not simply based on skin color, but shared experiences, culture, and the patient feeling more comfortable (more open) lead to very real health effects.

As a white applicant of course it’s frustrating to feel like you have to get higher stats. Don’t get me wrong, I read that letter and realized I never stood a chance compared to what I thought, which was a major bummer. But that’s just the natural outcome of schools finally course correcting for past poor admissions decisions and needing to fill the gap.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2803898

https://rrapp.spia.princeton.edu/having-a-black-doctor-statistically-reduces-mortality-risk-for-black-infants-particularly-those-with-complex-cases/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016762962300098X

I agree completely, I also think that SES should be the factor over race to consider. There is some correlation with 'URM' and 'low-SES', but that is definitely not always the case. I would say a low-SES applicant has a much harder road than if they are just a minority. If they are black and grew up in a rich suburb with every opportunity, then they should need as high of stats as any ORM to go to a high ranking school. I also agree that we don't just want only white and asain medical school classes; diversity is important too.

I’ve met some objectively brilliant doctors who had bad outcomes because they would berate any nurses that came to them with concerns. Turns out when you don’t catch things early, they get worse

A 7 hour exam and 4 year of class performance does not encompass factors such systemic oppression minorities often face, with it being most egregious often towards black and hispanic applicants.

As an ORM applicant, sure this likely is better for me personally and gives me a better shot, but this is overall really negative and continues to reinforce systemic oppression by preventing more minority groups into medicine, a field that desperately needs representation.

it’s easy to look at numbers and be like obv applicant A with higher stats deserves to be accepted over applicant B with lower stats, but this fails to take into account how our system is set up to make applicant A more likely to succeed compared to applicant B.

There’s a lottttt more nuance to this for sure and I’d had to write a full paper to get into the nitty gritty of it, but overall, it’s silly to pretend race does not play a factor in access to opportunities and resources and thus should be taken into account in admissions to a certain degree

Yes, but that's not just limited to SES. That absolutely can have a role in adversity (which is an incredible quality in physicians), but I think that also discriminates against people who were fortunate to be born into wealthier families. The truth is that these are factors that the applicant could not control--they were randomly born into a family with diverse circumstances, and prioritizing one student over another for factors outside of their control is in some way unfair.

I think it needs to consider the range of activities. I think nowadays, admissions is looking too heavily for people who are underrepresented (which is great to have) but it creates a hyper-competitive pool for students who happened to come from a more fortunate background, and it seems as if they have to do a lot to make themselves stand out amongst those other students from higher-income families.

But that’s just common sense it’s going to end up that way.

A student who had to work while studying for the MCAT did more than a student who didn’t have to work. A student who had access to tutors and resources is going to come out ahead than one without, if the same amount of effort is put in.

someone who grew up with college educated parents is probably going to do better in school than someone who didn’t. Heck, my own kid’s college choices are greatly improving just by my being pre med because I’ve been able to spend countless hours tutoring her in her AP science classes.

You have to do more to stand out because when you start on first base, just getting to second isn’t as impressive. Being up to bat with one hand tied behind your back and getting to second is impressive.

But the argument here is that top schools are nitpicking people who barely got past first base just because they had a hand tied... You still need to get to second base no matter where you started.. To be honest in most cases the patient is going to be worried about their own health, not how many tutors their doctor had.