MED SCHOOL ADMISSIONS BIAS

To the Editors of The Crimson:

On Feb 20 The Crimson published statistics from a studs done by Harvard on the medical school admission and age an analysis emphasizing decreasing middle class admissions. This totally ignores the main finding of the study and the political situation in the medical school. The study showed that the top two social classes correlating with the top 10 per cent income group in this country (upper middle class) have made up 70-75 per cent of Harvard Medical Classes over the past 15 years. Slight shifts in class III (lower middle class) and class IV and V (working class) are overshadowed by the continuing dominance by the upper middle class.

While changes are occuring in medicine, it's illusory to think the system is becoming more democratic or representative. A few still control admissions and thus the type of person becomes a doctor. Feminists have made gains with increasing admissions or women from 19 per cent to 33 per cent over the past four years. Third world peoples have made gains from only token admissions in 1968 to 20 per cent this past year. Yet these changes in female and minority admissions are not changing the class divisions in medicine. Harvard Med has 71 per cent from the upper middle class last year. An analysis by Dr. Navarro (New England Journal of Medicine, Feb. 20) has shown the upper middle class male compsoition (93.1 per cent) of doctors in medicine similar to the rest of corporate and professional America. Yet the working and lower middle class which forms the hugh labor force in health care is discriminated against so few can become doctors. Three actions by Harvard could rectify this injustice:

1) a recruiting program for socioeconomically disadvantaged persons

2) an office of career development to insure these people have access to educational opportunities and primary care areas

3) an ombudsperson to insure the just representation of these people.

Yet perhaps nothing can be done about class bias in selection doctors given the present patrician control of the medical community, what then?

During the past 15 years, medicine has been entering the post-industrial era and corporate capitalism. It's becoming a social institution with increasing central federal funding. The trend and call from the leaders of medicine is to remove funding from individuals and independent projects and place it in the growing medical complex's hand. National health insurance foretells the coming unified and centralized medical system. All this raises the spectre of a centralized medical empire with as democratic a structure as IBM. The doctor sees his or her role changing from line advocate for the poor, sick and downtrodden to bureaucratic head of this colossus. Herein we see the significance of Harvard's past and present discriminatory practices. Ultimately truly basic changes are needed. Institutional democracy with control of corporate complexes by those working in them and those being served by them is needed at Harvard and in medicine in general to finally give the plebian just representation. Lauie Graff   Harvard Medical School '76