Secondary Logo

Journal Logo


The Consequences of Structural Racism on MCAT Scores and Medical School Admissions: The Past Is Prologue

Lucey, Catherine Reinis MD; Saguil, Aaron MD, MPH

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002939


Medical education is a public good, responsible for preparing the physician workforce that our nation needs and for producing physician–citizens who will participate in and advance our democracy.1,2 To accomplish this mission, medical schools must build a physician workforce that is diverse and inclusive with respect to race, ethnicity, and all the rich identities that exist within our communities.3 Racially and ethnically diverse medical students and physicians improve access to care, adherence to treatment, quality of the educational environment, and breadth and impact of research.4–10 Our nation also needs physician–citizens who are prepared to use their voices and the trust our communities place in them to advocate not only for better health care but also for equity in opportunity and in the social systems on which patients rely. Fulfilling these obligations to society requires that all physicians actively recognize and address the pernicious role that structural racism has played in creating and sustaining inequities in health care, education, and societal opportunity in our country.11 A critical first step is to examine the ways in which medical schools use the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) to evaluate aspiring physicians and the impact these practices have on the profession’s ability to build a racially and ethnically diverse physician workforce.

In this Perspective, we look at how MCAT scores are used in admissions and how structural racism and differing access to opportunity create and perpetuate group differences in MCAT scores. We explore how the MCAT exam neither over- nor underpredicts performance among racial and ethnic groups while sharing how assigning too much weight to the highest MCAT scores in admissions decision making makes it difficult to build medical school classes that are representative of patient communities. Finally, we encourage the medical education and admissions leadership to adopt 3 practices to appropriately use MCAT scores in the context of holistic admissions.

How MCAT Scores Are Currently Used

Extensive validation studies done on each iteration of the MCAT exam demonstrate that it is a psychometrically valid achievement test that predicts applicants’ likelihood of success in several aspects of medical education, including medical school coursework, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step exams, and graduation in 4 or 5 years.12–14 The range of MCAT scores that are compatible with success in medical school, however, is wide.15,16 Recognizing this, many medical schools use a holistic review approach to evaluate applicants, balancing quantitative assessments of their academic achievements using MCAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages with qualitative data on their premedical school experiences and personal attributes. Still, lower scores on the MCAT exam, even those within the range predictive of success, are associated with lower rates of acceptance to medical school.16

A persistent affinity for applicants with the highest scores on standardized exams is not unique to medical schools. The Supreme Court has heard highly publicized legal cases challenging the appropriateness of admissions decisions that are made using characteristics beyond test scores.17–19 Many of these cases question why students with lower scores on standardized exams are admitted to institutions of higher education while students with higher scores are rejected. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that higher test scores are indicative of a better student. The reality is much more nuanced.

In evaluating applicants whose MCAT scores fall within the range of scores that predict success in medical school, admissions committees must consider other important characteristics that suggest that a given applicant will contribute to the workforce that is needed by communities across the country. Focusing on workforce needs, admissions committees may justifiably select applicants with MCAT scores at the lower end of the range predicting success in medical school because, for example, their rural backgrounds increase the likelihood that they will practice in an underserved area, because they speak the language and understand the culture of a major demographic group in the United States, or because their LGBTQ+ identity adds an important perspective to the educational and health care environments. Additionally, while the MCAT exam is designed to measure applicants’ academic preparation for medical school, it is not designed to measure or predict their performance related to other, essential competencies, such as interpersonal skills and communication, professionalism, and ethical behavior, or to take the place of other attributes that nonexam aspects of the admissions process evaluate.

Group Differences in MCAT Scores

Individuals of every race and ethnicity obtain scores from the low, middle, and high ranges of the MCAT score scale, but mean scores are lower for applicants from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM) compared with mean scores for their peers who are from groups well represented in medicine. These group differences on the new MCAT exam are similar to those on the old exam20,21; on other measures of academic achievement; and on high-stakes exams, such as the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT.22,23 Overlooking applicants with anything but the highest scores contributes to persistent challenges in diversifying medical school classes. This practice is particularly problematic when the weight accorded to MCAT scores in admissions decision making is greater than the weight given to other predictors of students’ success, such as demonstrated community service, clinical and research experiences, and personal competencies.24,25

Seeking a quick solution, some have called for eliminating the MCAT exam or reporting scores as pass or fail.26–28 Eliminating the exam would prevent medical schools from using the scores to ensure that applicants have demonstrated sufficient achievement to be ready for medical school. A pass–fail scoring system would hinder the work of schools that employ holistic review admissions processes to admit applicants with a wide range of MCAT scores, including scores that would fall below a national pass–fail cutoff.16 Instead, leaders in medical education must work to understand the root causes of group differences in MCAT scores and propose, pilot, and disseminate appropriate countermeasures.

Why Group Differences Exist

The recognition that mean MCAT scores differ between white, black, and Latinx populations has led many to view the exam as intrinsically biased.27 However, psychometric studies show that this is not the case. Psychometric validity exists when a high-stakes exam neither over- nor underpredicts the subsequent performance of different examinee populations. Scores from the old MCAT exam did not show bias against black and Latinx medical students in predicting their success in medical school and on licensing exams (i.e., the success rates of students from these races/ethnicities were not higher than their scores predicted).20 Early research on the new exam shows that new scores predict success in the first year of medical school comparably for examinees from URM and non-URM backgrounds.14

In this Perspective, we provide a closer look at these group differences, which reveal that while the MCAT exam predicts medical school performance in the same way for students from different backgrounds, the educational opportunities afforded to students from kindergarten to the time they take the MCAT exam are not equitable. Unequal opportunities in housing, education, and other areas of society for different populations have led to differing levels of academic achievement, reflected in mean score differences on high-stakes examinations and in other measures of academic success between URM and non-URM students with similar aptitudes. These unequal opportunities and the resulting differences in achievement have their roots in structural racism.

Structural Racism and Unequal Opportunity

Centuries of structural and interpersonal racism and bias have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in wealth, health, and educational opportunity. While overt discrimination against people of color was outlawed in the 1960s, hundreds of years of legalized discrimination before that time created the conditions in which minority populations remain significantly disadvantaged, even today.29 When first introduced, government programs, such as Social Security,30,31 the Federal Housing Administration loan program,32 and the GI Bill, implicitly or explicitly prevented minority populations from receiving benefits,33,34 causing them to endure substantial, sustained economic disadvantage.11,35,36 These and other programs also promoted residential segregation and prevented home ownership among people of color, concentrating minority populations in low-income neighborhoods with inadequate access to quality housing, economic/occupational opportunity, health care, fresh food, quality schools, and public safety.11,35 In addition, the criminal justice system continues to produce disparate outcomes for people of color, contributing to family fragmentation, poverty, and diminished employment opportunities for previously incarcerated individuals.37

These and other discriminatory practices have negatively affected economic success in minority populations. In 2016, the median level of wealth for white families was $171,000, while the median wealth for black families was $17,600. Data from 2015 show that 3 times as many children of color as white children live in households below the poverty level.38,39

The negative impact of these social systems and practices on educational opportunity is striking. Because the major source of local government funding for public schools comes from property taxes, housing inequality leads to educational inequality.40 Supplemental Digital Appendix 1 available at includes 2 illustrations of the persistent impact of 20th-century discriminatory housing policies on 21st-century educational opportunity.41,42 Panel A shows a 1935 map of redlined communities in San Francisco, California, that were deemed hazardous for mortgage lending because of their high concentration of black residents.41 Panel B shows a map of low-quality schools today concentrated in the same geographic areas as the redlined communities in 1935.42

Across the nation, black and Latinx children are more likely than white children to live in poverty, experience food insecurity, reside in single-parent households, and grow up in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment.20 Minority children also are more likely to attend low-quality day care and show elevated blood lead levels.20 Black and Latinx students are more likely to attend schools with high teacher turnover, inexperienced teachers, and teachers who are not certified in the subjects they teach.20,43 In addition, unstable parental employment may require children to change schools more frequently.20 Black and Latinx students are more likely than Asian or white students to attend a high-poverty school44 and to report the presence of gangs in school.45 High schools in low-income areas are much less likely to offer advanced placement coursework or skilled college advisors.46,47

These unequal educational opportunities continue into college. Lack of family wealth may lead minority students to begin their college education in the community college system48 and to work during school, leaving them with less time for studying, unpaid internships, shadowing, and other experiences. Minority students from lower-resourced colleges and universities may have less access to the necessary prerequisites for medical school, academically beneficial experiences such as research projects, or experienced and accessible health professions career advisors.49,50

While economics are important, a high socioeconomic status does not protect students of color from the negative effects of structural and interpersonal racism.51 Studies have documented that even at low-poverty schools, discipline in K–12 education is more frequent and severe for children of color than for white children,52,53 leading to interrupted or terminated school experiences. Opportunities to participate in gifted and talented programs are more often denied to minority students in school systems that do not employ sound selection procedures, a finding that persists across socioeconomic levels.54 Even minority students from middle or high socioeconomic levels can experience the negative effects of low expectations, denying them the encouragement and support to pursue educational opportunities beyond high school.55,56

These and many other examples of structural and interpersonal racism underpin the observed group differences between URM and non-URM students in academic achievement and in scores on high-stakes exams. As we have explained, social, economic, employment, health, and criminal justice challenges all negatively affect students’ achievement. Not all URM students experience all of these trials, but most experience at least some of them. Despite multiple barriers to success, many aspiring medical students from URM groups demonstrate substantial achievement, earning MCAT scores that are within the range that predicts success in medical school.16 Equitable interpretation of MCAT scores requires consideration of the context in which each applicant earned those scores, rather than assuming that all applicants had equal opportunities.

What Can Be Done?

Addressing this opportunity gap is daunting for medical educators, but it is not impossible. Leaders in medical education can address the impact of unequal opportunity on the diversity of the nation’s physician workforce using 3 critical levers: admissions processes, pipeline programs, and curriculum.

Admissions processes: Use MCAT scores wisely

Medical school leaders must instruct and support their admissions committees to understand and use MCAT scores appropriately, eschewing the use of such scores for anything other than identifying the achievement level that students need to succeed in their institutions. The MCAT exam enables every medical school to identify applicants whose current level of achievement may be too low to succeed in their school. Beyond that cutoff, selecting students based on small differences in scores is not supported by the data on the reliability of the exam.16 Despite this psychometric evidence, admissions officers describe pressure from institutional stakeholders to select students with the highest scores because the ranking of the medical school depends in part on the mean MCAT score of the matriculating class.57

Medical schools that have assembled classes of capable, diverse students use several strategies. First, they identify the full range of MCAT scores associated with success at their school. Then, they consider each applicant’s score in context, recognizing that a history of multiple adverse educational experiences related to race or ethnicity may lead to scores that are lower than those of other applicants but still predictive of success.58 Furthermore, these schools build a learning environment in which the obstacles to achievement that may have existed for their students before entry into medical school are highly attenuated or eliminated.

The University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, for example, published data documenting that the gap in standardized exam scores between URM and non-URM students narrows at each stage of medical school, suggesting that a supportive learning environment may help URM students achieve success at a faster rate than their non-URM peers.59 Morehouse School of Medicine also reported achievement in fostering the success of students who entered the school with a wide range of MCAT scores.60 The success of holistic review in diversifying medical school classes has led residency programs to adopt a similar approach to selecting interns, recognizing that excess weighting of scores on the standardized, high-stakes USMLE Step exams interferes with the goal of diversifying residency programs.61,62

Achieving greater diversity through admissions requires making changes to the whole admissions process. Medical schools are exploring multiple strategies for achieving this aim, for example, employing anonymous voting systems; blinding interviewers to academic metrics; and using multiple mini-interviews and scoring rubrics to give equal weight to experiences, attributes, and academic metrics. In addition, ensuring diversity in the composition of admissions committees and encouraging admissions committee members to complete training in mitigating unconscious bias can help them make judgments about academic and professional promise given each applicant’s unique context.25,63

Pipeline programs: Enhance opportunities for applicants to prepare for medical school

Medical schools and national medical education organizations must redouble their efforts to address the proximate barriers to success for URM students aspiring to become physicians. Success on the MCAT exam requires exam-specific preparation in addition to high-quality higher education. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has worked to decrease barriers to test preparation by providing free study guides and tools and reduced-price registration for applicants with financial hardship.64 Additionally, the AAMC has collaborated with the Khan Academy and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to provide a collection of free, online, video-based tutorials on the topics covered on the MCAT exam.65 Unfortunately, use of these test preparation resources is lower among premedical students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those who attend lower-resourced schools.21

These students also may not have ready access to knowledgeable individuals who can advise them on best practices to prepare for the MCAT exam. Health professions advisors play an important role in preparing undergraduate students to be strong, academically qualified medical school applicants; however, such advisors are not equitably distributed across the nation’s higher education institutions. Underresourced institutions are less likely to provide institutional or financial support for premedical advising.66 Recognizing the value of high-quality health professions advisors, the National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions offers advising services free of charge to students from colleges that do not have dedicated health professions advisors.67

Many medical schools have developed partnerships with communities and schools across the educational continuum to support URM and socioeconomically disadvantaged students interested in health professions careers. The success of these endeavors depends on a broad-based institutional commitment to diversity that is sustained with financial support and based in respectful community engagement. For example, the University of Illinois at Chicago Urban Health Program includes initiatives that span elementary school through undergraduate education and provides access to and preparation for all health professions; it is aimed at the needs of URM students, many of whom attend underresourced schools.68 Medical schools also sponsor programs that enable prehealth advisors from nearby undergraduate institutions to learn more about the medical school admissions process and MCAT exam preparation.69–71 Other schools embrace their role as an anchor institution, leveraging their system’s procurement, investment, and employment opportunities to improve the educational and economic milieu for those in the surrounding community, including those aspiring to health professions careers.72

Curriculum: Educate physician–citizens

As a profession and as individuals, physicians are trusted for their ability to think critically and advise individuals and communities about threats to health. No greater threat to health exists today than the disparities in our social systems, which shorten lives, obstruct access to evidence-based health care, impoverish families, incarcerate generations, and attenuate educational achievement. The next generation of physicians can take on this work if we are able to build a diverse workforce through holistic admissions and help them to develop the expertise they need. All medical schools must train the next generation of physicians to understand the existence and extensive ramifications of structural racism and the resultant health and health care disparities. Additionally, recognizing how structural racism leads to interpersonal bias may help physicians address their own personal biases that contribute to health care inequities.73 Diversifying medical school classes is a critical first step in educating physicians to work effectively with individuals from all populations. Schools also must establish core competencies related to understanding structural racism and its influence on health and health care disparities. In addition, structural competence and antiracism curricula should be introduced in undergraduate and graduate medical education.74–76


Structural racism is the result of centuries of discrimination against people of color in the United States. Its roots are deep and its consequences far-reaching. Medical education and the profession of medicine are as affected by this stain as other social systems are. The medical profession can successfully educate the diverse physician workforce that our communities need and prepare all physicians to be the citizens our democracy needs if we collectively commit to understanding and counteracting the impact of structural racism on medical student selection and education and on the provision of health care. Embracing new ideas about what MCAT scores are desirable may be more acceptable if the purpose behind this necessary mindset change is to mitigate the effects of society’s structural racism.


The authors acknowledge the dedication and contributions of the Medical College Admission Test Validity Committee and the following Association of American Medical Colleges staff: Cynthia Searcy, Karen Mitchell, Lesley Ward, and Jordan Yee Prendez (psychometric intern). They thank University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine students Jazzmin Williams and Laeesha Corneo for publicizing the maps of San Francisco that illustrate the persistent impact of structural racism on educational quality. In addition, they acknowledge the tremendous efforts of all medical school leaders, faculty, and administrators who are working to diversify the physician workforce.


1. Labaree DF. Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. Am Educ Res J. 1997;34:39–81.
2. Bhutta ZA, Chen L, Cohen J, et al. Education of health professionals for the 21st century: A global independent Commission. Lancet. 2010;375:1137–1138.
3. Boelen C, Woollard B. Social accountability and accreditation: A new frontier for educational institutions. Med Educ. 2009;43:887–894.
4. Hung R, McClendon J, Henderson A, Evans Y, Colquitt R, Saha S. Student perspectives on diversity and the cultural climate at a U.S. medical school. Acad Med. 2007;82:184–192.
5. McGee R Jr, Saran S, Krulwich TA. Diversity in the biomedical research workforce: Developing talent. Mt Sinai J Med. 2012;79:397–411.
6. 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;78:460–466.
7. Morrison E, Grbic D. Dimensions of diversity and perception of having learned from individuals from different backgrounds: The particular importance of racial diversity. Acad Med. 2015;90:937–945.
8. Saha S, Guiton G, Wimmers PF, Wilkerson L. Student body racial and ethnic composition and diversity-related outcomes in US medical schools. JAMA. 2008;300:1135–1145.
9. Dunlap JL, Jaramillo JD, Koppolu R, Wright R, Mendoza F, Bruzoni M. The effects of language concordant care on patient satisfaction and clinical understanding for Hispanic pediatric surgery patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50:1586–1589.
10. Parker MM, Fernández A, Moffet HH, Grant RW, Torreblanca A, Karter AJ. Association of patient-physician language concordance and glycemic control for limited-English proficiency Latinos with type 2 diabetes. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:380–387.
11. Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: Evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017;389:1453–1463.
12. Julian ER. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Acad Med. 2005;80:910–917.
13. Dunleavy DM, Kroopnick MH, Dowd KW, Searcy CA, Zhao X. The predictive validity of the MCAT exam in relation to academic performance through medical school: A national cohort study of 2001–2004 matriculants. Acad Med. 2013;88:666–671.
14. Busche K, Elks ML, Hanson JT, et al. The validity of scores from the new MCAT exam in predicting student performance: Results from a multisite study. Acad Med. 2020;95:387–395.
15. Association of American Medical Colleges. Using Scores From the Old MCAT Exam in Medical Student Selection. 2016.Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.
16. Association of American Medical Colleges. Using MCAT Data in 2020 Medical Student Selection. 2019. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; Accessed July 24, 2019.
17. Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 US 1978.265
18. Fisher v University of Texas, 579 US __ (2016).
19. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v President and Fellows of Harvard Coll. (Harvard Corp.) 261 F supp 3d 99 (D Mass 2017).
20. Davis D, Dorsey JK, Franks RD, Sackett PR, Searcy CA, Zhao X. Do racial and ethnic group differences in performance on the MCAT exam reflect test bias? Acad Med. 2013;88:593–602.
21. Girotti JA, Chanatry JA, Clinchot DM, et al. Investigating group differences in examinees’ preparation for and performance on the new MCAT exam. Acad Med. 2020;95:365–374.
22. Camara WJ, Schmidt AE. Group Differences in Standardized Testing and Social Stratification. 1999. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board; Report no. 99-5.
23. Sackett PR, Shen W. Outtz JL. Subgroup differences on cognitive tests in contexts other than personnel selection. In: Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection. 2010.New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
24. Ballejos MP, Rhyne RL, Parkes J. Increasing the relative weight of noncognitive admission criteria improves underrepresented minority admission rates to medical school. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27:155–162.
25. Terregino CA, McConnell M, Reiter HI. The effect of differential weighting of academics, experiences, and competencies measured by multiple mini interview (MMI) on race and ethnicity of cohorts accepted to one medical school. Acad Med. 2015;90:1651–1657.
26. Muller D, Kase N. Challenging traditional premedical requirements as predictors of success in medical school: The Mount Sinai School of Medicine Humanities and Medicine Program. Acad Med. 2010;85:1378–1383.
27. Genao I, Gelman J. The MCAT’s restrictive effect on the minority physician pipeline: A legal perspective. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:403–404.
28. Sturman N, Parker M. The elusive grail of social inclusion in medical selection. Med Educ. 2013;47:542–544.
29. Pager D, Shepherd H. The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annu Rev Sociol. 2008;34:181–209.
30. United States Code: Social Security Act, 42 USC. 1934).suppl. 4 §§ 301–1305 (
31. Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Population: Volume IV. Occupations by states. Published 1933. Accessed July 18, 2019.
32. Logan JR. The persistence of segregation in the 21st century metropolis [published online ahead of print June 17, 2013]. City Community. doi:10.1111/cico.12021
33. Turner SE, Bound J. Closing the gap or widening the divide: The effects of the G.I. Bill and World War II on the educational outcomes of black Americans. J Econ Hist. 2013;63:145–177.
34. Herbold H. Never a level playing field: Blacks and the G.I. Bill. J Blacks High Educ. 1994–1995:Winter 104–108.
35. Hahn RA, Truman BI, Williams DR. Civil rights as determinants of public health and racial and ethnic health equity: Health care, education, employment, and housing in the United States. SSM Popul Health. 2018;4:17–24.
36. Aliprantis D, Carroll D. What is behind the persistence of the racial wealth gap? Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland website. Published February 28, 2019. Accessed July 18, 2019.
37. The Sentencing Project. Report to the United Nations on racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. Published April 19, 2018. Accessed July 18, 2019.
38. Dettling LJ, Hsu JW, Jacobs L, Moore KB, Thompson JP. Recent trends in wealth-holding by race and ethnicity: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances. FEDS Notes. Published 2017. Accessed July 18, 2019.
39. Patten E, Krogstad JM. Black child poverty rate holds steady, even as other groups see declines. Pew Research Center website. Published 2015. Accessed July 18, 2019.
40. Reschovsky A. The future of U.S. public school revenue from property tax. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy website. Published 2017. Accessed July 18, 2019.
41. Nelson RK, Winling L, Marciano R, et al. Nelson RK, Ayers EL. Mapping inequality. Redlining in New Deal America. In: American Panorama. Accessed July 18, 2019.
42. San Francisco, CA. Accessed February 26, 2019.
43. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot: Teacher equity. Published 2014. Accessed July 18, 2019.
44. Orfield G, Chungmei L. Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. The Civil Rights Project. Published 2005. Accessed July 18, 2019.
45. Musu-Gillette L, De Brey C, McFarland J, Hussar W, Sonnenberg W, Wilkinson-Flicker S. Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2017. National Center for Education Statistics website. Published 2017. Accessed July 18, 2019.
46. Handwerk P, Tognatta N, Coley RJ, Gitomer DH. Access to Success: Patterns of Advanced Placement Participation in U.S. High Schools. 2008.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
47. The Executive Office of the President. Increasing college opportunity for low-income students: Promising models and a call to action. Published 2014. Accessed July 18, 2019.
48. Gandara P. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Colburn L, Evans CH. Lost opportunities: The difficult journey to higher education for underrepresented minority students. In: The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. 2001.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. Carnevale AP, Strohl J. Separate & Unequal: How Higher Education Reinforces the Intergenerational Reproduction of White Racial Privilege. 2013.Washington, DC: Georgetown Public Policy Institute.
50. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Colburn L, Evans CH. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Colburn L, Evans CH. The right thing to do, the smart thing to do: Enhancing diversity in the health professions. In: The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. 2001.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. Kohli R, Pizarro M, Nevárez A. The “new racism” of K–12 schools: Centering critical research on racism. Rev Res Educ. 2017;41:182–202.
52. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot: School discipline. Published 2014. Accessed July 18, 2019.
53. U.S. Government Accountability Office. K–12 education: Discipline disparities for black students, boys, and students with disabilities.–258. Published 2018. Accessed July 18, 2019.
54. Grissom JA, Redding C. Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open. 2016;2:1–25.
55. Allen Q. Racial microaggressions: The schooling experiences of black middle-class males in Arizona’s secondary schools. J Afr Am Males Educ. 2010;1:125–143.
56. Gershenson S, Papageorge N. The power of teacher expectations: How racial bias hinders student attainment. Education Next. Winter 2018;18. Accessed July 18, 2019.
57. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2017 admissions officer survey. April 2017. Unpublished data.
58. Terregino CA, Saguil A, Price-Johnson T, Anachebe NF, Goodell K. The diversity and success of medical school applicants with scores in the middle third of the MCAT score scale. Acad Med. 2020;95:344–350.
59. Teherani A, Hauer KE, Fernandez A, King TE Jr, Lucey C. How small differences in assessed clinical performance amplify to large differences in grades and awards: A cascade with serious consequences for students underrepresented in medicine. Acad Med. 2018;93:1286–1292.
60. Elks ML, Herbert-Carter J, Smith M, Klement B, Knight BB, Anachebe NF. Shifting the curve: Fostering academic success in a diverse student body. Acad Med. 2018;93:66–70.
61. Spector AR, Railey KM. Reducing reliance on test scores reduces racial bias in neurology residency recruitment [published online ahead of print March 29, 2019]. J Natl Med Assoc. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2019.03.004
62. Aibana O, Swails JL, Flores RJ, Love L. Bridging the gap: Holistic review to increase diversity in graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2019;94:1137–1141.
63. Capers Q, McDougle L, Clinchot DM. Strategies for achieving diversity through medical school admissions. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29:9–18.
64. Association of American Medical Colleges. AAMC Fee Assistance Program. Accessed July 25, 2019.
65. Khan Academy. MCAT test prep. Accessed July 25, 2019.
66. Oyewole SH. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Colburn L, Evans CH. Sustaining minorities in prehealth advising programs: Challenges and strategies for success. In: The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert W. Nickens, M.D. 2001.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
67. National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions. Find an advisor. Accessed July 25, 2019.
68. Toney M. The long, winding road: One university’s quest for minority health care professionals and services. Acad Med. 2012;87:1556–1561.
69. Morehouse School of Medicine. Morehouse School of Medicine Pre-Medical Faculty Summit 2018: Developing strategies for a diverse health professions workforce. Published 2018. Accessed July 18, 2019.
70. Illinois Medical School Admissions Consortium. Medical school admissions workshop, University of Illinois at Chicago; October 31, 2014; Chicago, IL.
71. University of South Alabama. Alabama Health Professions Advisor Conference website. Published 2018. Accessed July 18, 2019.
72. Vick AD, Baugh A, Lambert J, et al. Levers of change: A review of contemporary interventions to enhance diversity in medical schools in the USA. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:53–61.
73. Matthew DB. Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care. 2015.New York, NY: NYU Press.
74. Metzl JM, Hansen H. Structural competency: Theorizing a new medical engagement with stigma and inequality. Soc Sci Med. 2014;103:126–133.
75. Hardeman RR, Burgess D, Murphy K, et al. Developing a medical school curriculum on racism: Multidisciplinary, multiracial conversations informed by Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP). Ethn Dis. 2018;28(suppl 1):271–278.
76. Gard LA, Peterson J, Miller C, et al. Social determinants of health training in U.S. primary care residency programs: A scoping review. Acad Med. 2019;94:135–143.

Supplemental Digital Content