The AAMC's Definition of “Underrepresented in Medicine” | Medical Education and Training | AMA Journal of Ethics | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Does the AAMC's Definition of “Underrepresented in Medicine” Promote Justice and Inclusivity?

Learning Objectives
1. Explain a new or unfamiliar viewpoint on a topic of ethical or professional conduct
2. Evaluate the usefulness of this information for his or her practice, teaching, or conduct
3. Decide whether and when to apply the new information to his or her practice, teaching, or conduct
1 Credit CME
Abstract

In 2003, the Association of American Medical Colleges reframed the concept underrepresented minorities as underrepresented in medicine (URiM), which defines representation in medicine relative to representation in the US population. Schools are permitted to construct URiM definitions, suggesting the importance of regarding them as fluid works in progress as US demographics evolve. Where medical school admissions processes consider applicants' backgrounds and experiences of identity minoritization to be valuable, progress toward inclusive representation has been made. This article considers whether school-based URiM definitions are ethically sufficient and canvasses possible next steps in realizing equitable representation in medical education.

Introduction

Fostering student diversity in medical school admissions is fundamentally linked to the creation of a diverse health care workforce and is therefore a valuable endeavor, as underscored by Jordan Cohen, former president and chief executive officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): “Given that our primary obligation to society is to furnish it with a physician work force appropriate to its needs, our mandate is to select and prepare students … who, in the aggregate, bear a reasonable resemblance to the racial, ethnic, and, of course, gender profiles of the people they will serve.”1 Rumala and Cason assert that increasing racial diversity is squarely “on the agenda” of US medical schools.2 Creating a diverse workforce that reflects the demographic makeup of the communities served in turn has implications for learning. Whitla and colleagues found that medical students felt that having a diverse student body allowed them to “work more effectively with those of different backgrounds,” enhanced classroom discussions, and “foster[ed] serious discussions of alternative viewpoints.”3Quiz Ref IDIn programs instituting cultural sensitivity training, Guiton and colleagues found that the factor with the greatest impact on students' perceptions of the experiences of minorities in health care was informal instructional interactions with peers from diverse backgrounds.4 Thus, even as schools instituted cultural sensitivity curricula, the presence of students from diverse backgrounds had greater influence on their learning.

The benefits of diversity in patient care are well documented. In 2004, the Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce released a report, Missing Persons: Minorities in the Health Professions, which called for an increase of persons from historically underrepresented and underserved backgrounds at all levels of the health care workforce.5 The report stated that diversity among students entering the health professions “will improve the overall health of the nation.”5 Echoing this claim, Thomas and Dockter argued that diversity in the health care workforce helps to reduce health disparities.6 In a recent review, Gomez and Bernet concluded that diversity of health professionals can improve patient health outcomes, quality of care, and financial performance.7 Despite evidence supporting the benefits of diversification of students entering medical school, the path to achieving this aim has been stalled at worst and meandering at best. This paper explores whether the AAMC's shift from a definition of underrepresented minorities (URM) to a definition of underrepresented in medicine (URiM) is ethically sufficient for motivating justice and inclusiveness in medical education.

Diversification History

Quiz Ref IDOne barrier to diversification in medical schools is that schools and society still grapple with overcoming present-day legacies of US racism and a history of discrimination.8 Challenges to diversification in higher education persist, despite court decisions. Quiz Ref IDThe idea that student body diversity serves as a compelling interest in higher education and that the limited use of race in admissions is permissible was established in 3 Supreme Court cases: Regents of the University of California v Bakke (1978),9Grutter v Bollinger (2003),10 and Gratz v Bollinger (2003).11 These cases' rulings have shaped practices in higher education institutions, including medical schools. Bakke specifically spoke to medical school admissions processes, and, while rejecting quotas for underrepresented populations, upheld the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions.9 The AAMC and several national health professions organizations have aligned their policies accordingly.6,8

From Desegregation to Diversification

With few exceptions, prior to 1960, African Americans and other minorities were de facto excluded from enrolling in US medical schools.8 Amidst the desegregation movement of the 1960s, higher education institutions established policies, programs, and practices that sought to achieve increased student diversity.6 The AAMC's definition of underrepresented minority (URM) as referring to “Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans … and mainland Puerto Ricans”12 informed schools' development of initiatives to recruit and prepare URM students for medical school.6 In 2003, the AAMC reframed URM as underrepresented in medicine (URiM), and, in 2004, following the Grutter v Bollinger ruling, clarified that Quiz Ref IDURiM refers to “racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.”12 This terminological change was implemented in response to changes in racial and ethnic categories used by the US Census Bureau and was intended to provide schools with the flexibility to use local demographics to foster diversity.13

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine (VCU SOM) provides a case example of how the AAMC's definitional change from URM to URiM influenced admissions. VCU SOM used 2010 US Census data to determine which populations in central Virginia are URiM. The analysis resulted in VCU SOM retaining the 4 demographic groups delineated in the original URM definition but prompted deeper exploration of and conversations about the school's admissions practices, which led to VCU SOM's use of additional student demographics (eg, socioeconomic status) to inform VCU SOM class diversification.

Contextualizing Justice and Inclusion

Considering race in admissions in higher education prompts the question: Who deserves a place in higher education institutions?14 According to AAMC data, 53 030 people applied for 22 239 places in 155 US medical schools during 2020-2021.15Quiz Ref IDOf concern has been the decline in the representation of Black men. As noted in the AAMC report, “Altering the Course: Black Males in Medicine,” between 1978 and 2014, the number of Black men applying to medical school dropped from 1410 to 1337, and the number of Black men enrolling in medical school dropped from 542 to 515.16 It is worth considering whether the AAMC's definitional shift from URM to URiM played a role in Black men's declining enrollment, since justice should be viewed within the social mission framework in which medical schools endeavor to motivate admissions equity,17 consistent with the AAMC's assertions that diversity enhances students' learning and improves health care for all.6 Yet, as Razack and colleagues note, there is a tension between inclusive and exclusive medical school admissions processes,18 which should prompt deeper ethical analysis of how the URiM definition increases access to medical school, both generally and for historically underrepresented groups. Broadening URM to URiM benefits all applicants, but does URiM promote justice and inclusion?

The AAMC's narrow focus on 4 racial and ethnic identities defining of URM, though accepted at that time, risked marginalizing applicants minoritized due to socioeconomic status, disability, rural background, or identifying as a sexual or gender minority. The AAMC's shift to URiM arguably helps to mitigate further marginalization of some demographic groups, and it accords current trends to extend norms of diversity beyond race to include plural and intersectional identities. In addition, the shift to URiM led to targeted medical school recruitment initiatives, such as pipeline programs (eg, the federally funded Health Careers Opportunity Program)19,20; more inclusive admissions practices, such as the holistic review of candidates' dossiers6,21; and targeted retention efforts. These efforts were concomitant with the federal government and philanthropic organizations acting to increase access to higher education for persons with minoritized and underrepresented identities. The net effect of these efforts has been a more diversified medical student body, an increase in co-learning, and a richer exchange of ideas that supports the aim of inclusivity. The percentage of URiM medical school matriculants rose from 11.3% in 1980 to 13.7% in 2016,22 and, though this trend is sluggish, it is in the right direction and offers good reason to promote additional funding and support for URiM outreach and inclusion.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based, video CME, audio CME, visuals, and more. Learn more

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement:  The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to: 

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; and
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program;

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

1 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;

1 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;

1 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; and

1 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program;

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Article Information

AMA Journal of Ethics

AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(12):E960-964.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships.

If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The author(s) had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.

Author Information:

  • Wendy A. Clay, MD, MPH is a resident physician in Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine's psychiatry residency program in Dayton, Ohio, and a Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine alumnus; Donna H. Jackson, EdD is an assistant dean for admissions and the director of student outreach at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond; Kevin A. Harris, PhD, MSA is a senior associate dean of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond.

References
1.
Cohen  JJ.  Finishing the bridge to diversity.  Acad Med. 1997;72(2):103–109.Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Rumala  BB, Cason  FD  Jr.  Recruitment of underrepresented minority students to medical school: minority medical student organizations, an untapped resource.  J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1000–1004, 1008-1009.Google Scholar
3.
Whitla  DK, Orfield  G, Silen  W, Teperow  C, Howard  C, Reede  J.  Educational benefits of diversity in medical school: a survey of students.  Acad Med. 2003;78(5):460–466.Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Guiton  G, Chang  MJ, Wilkerson  L.  Student body diversity: relationship to medical students' experiences and attitudes.  Acad Med. 2007;82(10)(suppl):S85–S88.Google Scholar
5.
Sullivan Commission.  Missing Persons: Minorities in the Health Professions. A Report of the Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce. September 2004. Accessed July 15, 2021. https://campaignforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SullivanReport-Diversity-in-Healthcare-Workforce1.pdf
6.
Thomas  BR, Dockter  N.  Affirmative action and holistic review in medical school admissions: where we have been and where we are going.  Acad Med. 2019;94(4):473–476.Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Gomez  LE, Bernet  P.  Diversity improves performance and outcomes.  J Natl Med Assoc. 2019;111(4):383–392.Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Daher  Y, Austin  ET, Munter  BT, Murphy  L, Gray  K.  The history of medical education: a commentary on race.  J Osteopath Med. 2021;121(2):163–170.Google ScholarCrossref
9.
Regents of Univ of Cal v Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978).
10.
Devins  N.  Explaining Grutter v Bollinger Univ PA Law Rev. 2003:152:347–383.Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Bollinger  LC.  A comment on Grutter and Gratz v Bollinger Columbia Law Rev. 2003;103(6):1588–1595.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
 Underrepresented in medicine definition.  Association of American Medical Colleges. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.aamc.org/what-we-do/diversity-inclusion/underrepresented-in-medicine
13.
Page  KR, Castillo-Page  L, Poll-Hunter  N, Garrison  G, Wright  SM.  Assessing the evolving definition of underrepresented minority and its application in academic medicine.  Acad Med. 2013;88(1):67–72.Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Sulé  VT, Winkle-Wagner  R, Maramba  DC.  Who deserves a seat?: colorblind public opinion of college admissions policy.  Equity Excell Educ. 2017;50(2):196–208.Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Association of American Medical Colleges.  Table A-1: US medical school applications and matriculants by school, state of legal residence, and sex, 2020-2021.  October 26 , 2020. Accessed June 14, 2021. https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2020-10/2020_FACTS_Table_A-1.pdf
16.
Association of American Medical Colleges.  Altering the course: black males in medicine. 2015. Accessed October 9, 2021. https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/84/
17.
Ellaway  RH, Malhi  R, Bajaj  S, Walker  I, Myhre  D.  A critical scoping review of the connections between social mission and medical school admissions: BEME Guide No. 47.  Med Teach. 2018;40(3):219–226.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Hurtado  S, Milem  JF, Clayton-Pedersen  AR, Allen  WR.  Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: educational policy and practice.  Rev High Educ. 1998;21(3):279–302.Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Razack  S, Hodges  B, Steinert  Y, Maguire  M.  Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: discourses of medical school student selection.  Med Educ. 2015;49(1):36–47.Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Grumbach  K, Coffman  J, Muñoz  C, Resenhoff  E, Gándara  P, Sepulveda  E.  Strategies for Improving the Diversity of the Health Professions. California Endowment; 2003. Accessed October 9, 2021. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/11275/11275.pdf
21.
Browne  ME.  Health Careers Opportunity Program: Deterrents Faced by Minority Students in a Post-Baccalaureate Medical Education Program. Dissertation. Oklahoma State University; 2012.
22.
Artinian  NT, Drees  BM, Glazer  G,  et al.  Holistic admissions in the health professions: strategies for leaders.  Coll Univ. 2017;92(2):65–68.Google Scholar
23.
Acosta  DA, Poll-Hunter  NI, Eliason  J; Association of American Medical Colleges.  Trends in racial and ethnic minority applicants and matriculants to US medical schools, 1980-2016.  Analysis in Brief. 2017;17(3):1–4. Accessed October 9, 2021. https://www.aamc.org/media/8816/download?attachmentGoogle Scholar
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
Close