I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your comment about making the system work for you. Utilizing available resources to achieve one’s goal is an important skill indeed!
However, I do not share your view that AAMC’s definition of disadvantage is the utmost objective one (or a correct one for that matter) and that only thing that matters is how they interpret it. Clearly, it is up to the applicants to decide to check the box or not. Thus, applicant’s perception/view plays a significant role in this debate.
Not to get into any philosophical debate but is there an empirical evidence that an applicant with poor parents who loved him/her and support him/her with limited resources have a higher wall to climb toward med school than an applicant with educated/successful parents who were too busy doing their own thing and provided no life/emotional/directiona l support? My point is that life situations are complex and institutional definitions of “disadvantaged” may not be truly objective or correct. AAMC may define it one way but we as, critically thinking beings, can interpret and use it in a way that reflect the founding idea/motive.
Ultimately, if this option exists to level the playing field for people who were dealt different cards, no one should be pressured to use it…esp. if one feels that playing field is already level or better. It is all up to the individual. Is it smart to use it? Perhaps. But don’t ridicule someone because he/she chooses not too.
I second that! 
Wow, I didnt realize I would start such a debate, haha!
Thank you everyone for the great input. As other people have stated, it is a little bit of a pride choice. I am still debating whether or not I will check that box, but after reading here, and finding some other good reads online I do feel that I fairly qualify. However, I would not want to be offered any scholarships if someone else in more need could use it. I plan on using my GI Bill to pay for med school. (The new GI bill is awesome in pursing post graduate education now!) And the savings I built up being in Afghanistan for over 3 years total. I think someone that is young, and on their own would be way more in need of any scholarships or grants.
With that being said, I am starting to be more and more okay of possibly getting an “easier” look from the admissions committees. I am in no way trying to slack off, but with only a month prep time my MCAT practice does not make me think Ill get that 35 I was hoping for!! I used think that I had to earn everything the hard way (must be that army in me). I feel I can succeed and excel at most any top tier school, although my GPA and MCAT might not currently show it. (3.5 Science, 3.6 overall, MCAT-1st practice test last month=17… Last weekend=27; hopefully Saturday brings a few more points as per the trend each test)… So after my long rant and self absorbance, I do think that the disadvantage block is quite a personal choice, but should be carefully considered before deciding against it. Those of us that are “self-made” men and women, have a lot of pride that we got ourselves to where we are. Even before we become doctors. But hey, if designating myself a little different helps me get into Yale instead of Unversidad del Caribe and puts me on the track to save lives, than I think I can still look back and say I got myself there.
The problem is we don’t apply the same logic to other parts of the application or process. Would we redefine the GPA? What about our attire for the interview? Would we go in attire appropriate to our respective culture? Why conform to US business attire? See where this goes. Why not question the institutional requirement of the MCAT by applying without taking it? Because we have to abide by the institutional definitions of what’s required because it is only their standards that matter. They are the gate keepers, they hold the keys and they and their definitions and requirements are what decides whether or not we can join the club or not.
Empirical evidence…umm…how many doctors did you know as neighbors growing up? I knew plenty of street pharmacist but not a single physician…or nurse…or CNA…or EMT. Heck I’ll give you empirical, when you go to a medical school graduation take note of how many of the new students are legacy students; whose parents are also physicians. Legacy students know full and well to keep quiet about their parents because they don’t want to be labeled or thought of as using nepotism to get into school or any other advantage…and yet. That is what I believe is really at the crux of why some chose not to check the box. I agree with my gurl pathdr2b that for many this is an issue of pride. Not posting about anyone here but offline acquaintances that I know of. No one wants to be viewed as the only reason they are in med school, job, or whatever is simply because of some type of affirmative action. We want it to be based purely on meritocracy but that is not the real world. There are hundreds if not thousands of students who will be in medical school this year and the only reason is because of who their parents are. The same can NOT be said about those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have to jump through all the hoops and then some and then even after getting accepted WITHOUT checking the box will be viewed and, dare I say, even treated as if the only reason we got in is because of the color of our skin, gender, or ethnicity.
So while I agree checking the box is personal, I differ in that this whole thing is personal and since we have to conform to what the institutions want then that should include checking that box if we fit the definition. We can chose not to because we take issue philosophically with how they define the term or we don’t want it assumed that the only reason we were accepted is because of anything else besides outstanding stats but as for me…I rather disagree with them philosophically while conforming to their definition and become a physician than hold onto semantical differences. Shooooooooo…let people assume whatever they want as long as they’re assuming it about Dr. Frank Croooz, M.D. Makes me no never mind as long as I end up where I need to be. Haters gonna hate anyway. 
So check the dang box and keep it moving…then help others from our old hood get in and create our own legacies.
This topic seems to be personal to you and clearly we are not going to see eye to eye on this. That is ok.
Not sure your example is considered an empirical/controlled evidence…and certainly not related to the two different disadvantaged scenarios I talked about (one that is institutionally recognized and one that is not).
Two schools of thought: 1) getting there is the most important 2) how you get there is just as important as getting there……none more right than the other.
WOW, a thread “dancing” around the AA issue that doesn’t involve me directly, I MUST have turned a new leaf in life!!
I personally don’t get the point about “how you get there” being important outside of cheating or breaking the law in some way. And perhaps it’s because I’m from a group that is almost always considered to be underachieving that I’ve learned over time to keep working hard and say to hell with the rest.
One of my favorite sayings is that “if I can’t get in through the front door, I’ll go through the back door. If that doesn’t work, I’ll crawl in through a window. If that doesn’t work, I’ll dig in through a tunnel. And if that doesn’t work, I’ll catch a ride Santa Claus and drop in through the chimney.”
My point is that if my goal is to get into the house, I really don’t care how I get in KNOWING that I’ll do so with my ethics and morals in tact. Because when I walk out, it WILL be through the front door!
BTW, LOVED that last comment Crooz!!!
- pathdr2b Said:
One of my favorite sayings is that "if I can't get in through the front door, I'll go through the back door. If that doesn't work, I'll crawl in through a window. If that doesn't work, I'll dig in through a tunnel. And if that doesn't work, I'll catch a ride Santa Claus and drop in through the chimney."
My point is that if my goal is to get into the house, I really don't care how I get in KNOWING that I'll do so with my ethics and morals in tact. Because when I walk out, it WILL be through the front door!
I love this! Great way to drive home the tenacity many of us nontrads are known for! Yup… Love it! And love this community…
I’m rooting hard for each of you!
I have watched this thread with interest; I will speak from the “other side” as someone who has reviewed many applications to post-bac programs (I directed the Johns Hopkins and Goucher programs) and who has had many conversations with medical school admissions deans.
If you’re disadvantaged the medical schools want to know about it. Any hardships applicants have had add to their resiliency (especially if they’ve gotten to the point of applying to medical school!) and to their ability to relate to others who may encounter challenges (i.e. patients). The med schools are trying to enroll more individuals who come from disadvantaged backgrounds; they add depth and breadth to medical school classes.
In my experience, applicants tend to refrain from identifying themselves as “disadvantaged” because they don’t usually think they fit the definition. As long as you can describe your circumstances compellingly in the essay that accompanies checking the box in the affirmative, you qualify as disadvantaged. I would encourage applicants to disclose this in the application process since it helps the medical schools understand you and your context better.
Cheers,
Liza
Thanks for your thoughts, Liza. Could you also address how other aspects of a person’s application would set him/her apart as “disadvantaged” even if they chose not to check the box? For example, in the end, I did not check the box. After this thread was expanded and I had already submitted, I am now feeling a bit regretful for not doing so. However, with regard to my economic indicator score assigned by AMCAS which is a 1 based on family income growing up and highest level of education of parents (high school for both), how does this score play into applications where someone has not checked that disadvantaged box? (As an aside, it is also somewhat my understanding that this score is being used at least in part because many disadvantaged students DO NOT check that box and this score helps adcomms to pick out those who are disadvantaged but decide not to explicitly say so on their app. Is this correct? Thoughts?)
Also, what about a personal statement that clearly indicates a less than advantaged background? My PS very much outlined my blue collar roots and some struggles I have faced in adulthood. Not having checked the disadvantaged box, but having other “evidence” of a disadvantaged background delineated in other parts of my application, how does this impact the view of an adcomm, generally speaking? I am sure each school has particular metrics, but will being clearly disadvantaged, but not having checked that box, put me at a disadvantage?
Thanks in advance for any additional thoughts you may give us all on this matter!
Hello Shannon,
The med schools will see the income level of your family when you were growing up if you opted to disclose that in the AMCAS application. They will also read whatever you included in the personal statement. But as an applicant you won’t be “flagged” as disadvantaged because you decided not to respond “yes” to the question asking if you were. This only means that they won’t automatically identify that you were disadvantaged.
But remember that you have other chances to provide more information about your background in the secondary applications. Many of them will have a question about a challenge you faced and how you dealt with it; that’s the perfect space in which to write about your background. Med schools pay VERY close attention to the secondary applications so you can be assured that they will read your essays carefully.
Don’t worry about this–even though you didn’t check the box the information will be found in other areas of your application. My post was intended to encourage applicants who question their status to strongly consider disclosing it if they believe they were truly disadvantaged (and sometimes they are loath to admit they were).
I wish you the best of luck in the application process!
Liza
- This post is a general comment NOT directed at ANY comment or commentor in this thread.
Disadvangtaged applicants are often Black/Brown and these students are more likely to be seen as unqualified or undeserving of a seat in med school. Therefore, it’s NOT suprising to me that students are reluctant to claim disadvantaged status.
What IS so NOT ironic to me is the realization that legagcy admits (Bush anyone?) are aften FAR more underserving than ANY disadvantaged applicant to med school. Because unlike the disadvantaged applicant that had to for example, start with lemon rinds and tap water to make lemonade, legacy admits often have lemons fresh from the tree, pure, filtered water, and real cane sugar with which to make their lemonade.
And with all that, I could teach a monkey to make a pitcher of lemonade!
- pathdr2b Said:
Disadvangtaged applicants are often Black/Brown and these students are more likely to be seen as unqualified or undeserving of a seat in med school.
I respectfully disagree with your statement. In fact, the opposite is generally true. Med schools are bending over backward to consider applicants from all ethnicities and have developed holistic review in an effort to ensure that all applicants are considered thoroughly and fairly. If you'd like to read more about the AAMC's initiative, click here.
Best,
Liza
Liza,
I’m sure you’re right and only time will tell. The AAMC’s “3000 by 2000” didn’t work out too well. Only when a school is at risk of losing its accreditation because of a lack of diversity and subsequently put on probation do they actively attempt to diversify their incoming student population. The bulk of Black/Brown students come from two to three schools.
Plus schools who “consider” applicants does not mean they “accept” the same applicants. In 97, 98, & 99 I had friends who were enthusiastically informed they were being “considered”, because of 3000x2000, who were never accepted. The theme became be happy at least you were considered which is what they were actually told.
The AAMC can make recommendations but the schools have to decide whether or not to implement them and even then there are no guarantees that the demographics will change. I get the problem because the reality is that the demographics will only change when those in positions of leadership are Black/Brown people however for them to get there requires for the demographics to change…catch-22. It’s the same issue I face in my religious denomination where minorities are very much a minority.
That is why I posted that those of us from disadvantaged backgrounds owe it to those coming behind us to get into positions of leadership…yet after premed, med school, residency, fellowship…folk get tired, don’t want to deal with the issues of academia, and fall back on “Hey I did it so you can too…plus it’s easier now for you than it was for me so just do what you gotta do and you’ll get in…I’ll write you a LOR when the time comes”
Croooz, where are you from?? (originally?)
- lizat Said:
- pathdr2b Said:
Disadvangtaged applicants are often Black/Brown and these students are more likely to be seen as unqualified or undeserving of a seat in med school.
I respectfully disagree with your statement. In fact, the opposite is generally true.
Best,
Liza
Liza, you've completely misread my statement here and I just don't have the energy to explain. But please feel free to check out ANY discussion on diversity in med school admissions or affirmative action discussion on that other premed website for details.
IMHO, proof of a school's commitment to diversification in medicine is best seen in the number of Black/Brown GRADUATES. And since there are FEWER Black/Brown folks matriculating in med school these days, it stands to reason that there are fewer Black/Brown GRADUATES.
I always say that schools truly committed to diversity in medicine will ALWAYS have diverse student bodies. Schools like Harvard and Columbia come to mind. Unfortunately, in this "pea" party/rush limbaugh society we live in, I seriously doubt anything will change until, as Crooz suggested, more Black/Brown folks get admitted, graduate, and participate in the selection process.
To crooz–you’re right about “3000 by 2000” in that it didn’t work. But I’m hopeful that the holistic review initiative will have an effect. More schools seem open to it and actual EVIDENCE has shown that it works (BU published an article recently in the New England Journal of Medicine attesting to the effect of holistic review; if you want to read that article click here). Crooz, you make very valid points but I do know that schools are making a concerted effort to give serious consideration to those from underrepresented groups in medicine.
To pathdr2b–sorry if I somehow misread or misinterpreted your statement!
Best,
Liza
The original poster brings up a question I had regarding this topic: if an applicant was the first person in his/her immediate family to graduate with a bachelor’s degree, does that qualify as disadvantaged? After a few minutes of googling I found that AMCAS will automatically designate you as SES-E01 “disadvantaged” if you were the first in your family.
Medical schools appreciate those who are the first in their family to graduate from college. Such an achievement represents a certain “distance traveled” and can add to the appeal of a candidate. Whether such an applicant qualifies as disadvantaged depends on the circumstances.
Adding to the discussion, today there was a post on Academic Medicine’s blog regarding holistic review.
Best,
Liza
Thanks Liza.