The AAMC technically states that URM = "underrepresented in medicine" (and logically, then, ORM = "over-represented in medicine"). This is based on the percentage of docs of a certain race/population in relation to their percentage in the general population. Apparently it used to mean "underrepresented minority" but they decided that basing the term on a fixed race as opposed to a fluid proportion made less sense.
ORM is kind of a made-up term in reaction to URM, though, so there's probably no set definition.
Last edited: Oct 6, 2017 Reactions: 3 usersThe AAMC technically states that URM = "underrepresented in medicine" (and logically, then, ORM = "over-represented in medicine"). This is based on the percentage of docs of a certain race/population in relation to their percentage in the general population. Apparently it used to mean "underrepresented minority" but they decided that basing the term on a fixed race as opposed to a fluid proportion made less sense.
ORM is kind of a made-up term in reaction to URM, though, so there's probably no set definition.
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. That definitely changes the way I read people's descriptions of themselves, lol.
Iirc, the term used to be "under-represented minority" but that was changed to "under-represented in medicine" by the AAMC in the 2000s. So ORM could mean the inverse of either one depending on time period!
Not sure why the change was made, I think it still means the same thing whenever the term is used.
ORM generally refers to those of East Asian or Indian descent. Typically people who describe themselves as ORM do not mean that they are white, although I have seen some white people describe themselves as ORM, which is a bit misleading IMO
ORM generally refers to those of East Asian or Indian descent. Typically people who describe themselves as ORM do not mean that they are white, although I have seen some white people describe themselves as ORM, which is a bit misleading IMO
Hmmm. That's how I've been interpreting it, but it seems like @SpartanWolverine 's explanation would definitely encompass white folks as well. Maybe I should have made a poll, haha.
Iirc, the term used to be "under-represented minority" but that was changed to "under-represented in medicine" by the AAMC in the 2000s. So ORM could mean the inverse of either one depending on time period!
Not sure why the change was made, I think it still means the same thing whenever the term is used.
I think it's still a term referring to racial/ethnic representation. Looking at the AAMC page linked above, it seems more likely it was changed because they realized sometimes the under-represented group isn't a minority in that area. So like take Baltimore as an example, it's majority black (only ~25-30% white) but the U of Maryland SOM would still count a black applicant from the city as URM - not because it's a minority, but because there are still too few black doctors relative to the population size.
Reactions: 2 usersI think it's still a term referring to racial/ethnic representation. Looking at the AAMC page linked above, it seems more likely it was changed because they realized sometimes the under-represented group isn't a minority in that area. So like take Baltimore as an example, it's majority black (only ~25-30% white) but the U of Maryland SOM would still count a black applicant from the city as URM - not because it's a minority, but because there are still too few black doctors relative to the population size.
Right, exactly. Gives each school a bit more freedom to use affirmative action based on their local population as well.
I'm surprised by this. The JHU SOM page says it follows the AAMC definition, and looking at the JHU URM program page that is all about promoting URM premeds in the undergrad division, it specifically designates racial/ethic and low-SES, no LGBT mentioned. Is there a source?
Also interestingly, the AAMC Medical Minority registry page specifically states that LGBT is not included:
I am a member of the LGBT community. Am I considered an underrepresented minority?
No, LGBT is not considered an unrepresented minority at this time.
So it would seem that schools using the AAMC definitions would not consider LGBT to be URM
Also interestingly, the AAMC Medical Minority registry page specifically states that LGBT is not included:
I am a member of the LGBT community. Am I considered an underrepresented minority?
No, LGBT is not considered an unrepresented minority at this time.
So it would seem that schools using the AAMC definitions would not consider LGBT to be URM
Specific schools are defining URM as they see fit. I can't remember which school did it, but they specifically cited on thier website that LGBT are URM to them
Reactions: 1 userThere's a LOT to criticize with the LGB education we get in training, lack of exposure to LGB specific issues, etc, but I'd be surprised if the under-representation is that significant. I think outreach is important, but using it as an explicit criterion like ethnicity often is might be a bit much.
Note: I'm specifically talking about LGB wrt orientation. The education regarding gender identity and transgender individuals is even worse, and there I would fully believe under-representation. The estimates for trans* identity are somewhere around 0.5% of the population, and yet I don't think I've ever worked with an openly trans physician. Not to say one would necessarily know.
Last edited: Oct 7, 2017 Reactions: 1 userThere's a LOT to criticize with the LGB education we get in training, lack of exposure to LGB specific issues, etc, but I'd be surprised if the under-representation is that significant. I think outreach is important, but using it as an explicit criterion like ethnicity often is might be a bit much.
Note: I'm specifically talking about LGB wrt orientation. The education regarding gender identity and transgender individuals is even worse, and there I would fully believe under-representation. The estimates for trans* identity are somewhere around 0.5% of the population, and yet I don't think I've ever worked with an openly trans physician. Not to say one would necessarily know.
I'm not familiar with any of the numbers of LBGT in practice. I vaguely remember treading something about LGBT med students having a harder time to finish med school due to societal pressures, but have no recollection of the time that was written. Even the 1990s were a different environment than today.
