The Truth About Minority Admissions.

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
61

<p>@Pennylane2011: It’s the med schools’ definition of competence that scares me, and apparently it scares them as well give all the literature out from things like the AMA itself about how medical education needs tons of reform. Currently, the way things have played out, the ones who risk like a tenth or 2 off their GPA to gain some much needed analytical or problem solving skills are essentially barred from a good medical school, and are limited in general (engineering majors, even those with a decent MCAT are limited if their GPA’s are below that of a biology major on average. Students in extremely rigorous grading AND content programs such as the sciences at MIT are also not put at an advantage in admissions and are instead perhaps disadvantaged. People claim that: "well, maybe they didn’t have enough ECs. Not buying it…). </p>

<p>Their current definition of competence for their entering classes is: “Will do what is necessary to appear great on paper even if it sacrifices the propensity to actually learn or desire learning”. Seems all about obedience and “staying in line” to me. Apparently the culture then bleeds over to med. school. You can read about medical school instructors who claim to have attempted to implement teaching methodologies that do not focus on lectures and memorizing who faced mass resistance from the student body (apparently they would go to the dean in masses and complain about how they could not predict what was on the test as well as other classes and things of that nature), especially when they refused to give computerized (multiple choice) exams. You call this building a culture of competence? I don’t, and neither do they, but obviously it’s hard to change when faculty members are used to teaching in ways that get them high evaluations (IE ways that students are accustomed to) and students are trained in very narrow ways because getting different types of training may lower their GPAs and prevent admissions. In honesty, a grad. school (science) type of admissions scheme makes more sense and would fix many problems (this would be a model where they certainly look at GPA, but more in the context of the types of courses they took and the level in which they engaged science or medicine. In other words, a person who demonstrated a desire to learn science at a much higher than normal level would not be punished for having like a 3.2-3.4 as opposed to the much higher self-inflated GPAs many obtain by working the system. It won’t be like: “You really should have avoided those grad. classes which you got a B in” </p>

<p>This value of maintaining superficial perfection at all costs would die down some at least, and I think students would end up educated better and faculty members would enjoy teaching science more. I’m also for a model that basically drops the requirements and sees what students do…As in putting more weight on the MCAT makes sense. Because then the students will do what is necessary to gain competencies as presented on the MCAT. It would give more flexibility and freedom and test the judgement of students. If the MCAT is truly the great equalizer, then there should be no requirements. A serious student will figure out what is on it and how to learn it whether it’s through formal courses or self-study. Also, those who don’t take a reasonably rigorous courseload (whether in science or non-science) should be expected to have a higher GPA. </p>

62

<p>As it pertains to medicine, the profession is much more than your grades, scores, and other metrics. It is about taking care of patients. IMO, this has been lacking in medicine. The trends show that minority physicians are more likely to serve minority communities <a href=“https://www.aamc.org/download/87306/data/physiciandiversityfacts.pdf”>https://www.aamc.org/download/87306/data/physiciandiversityfacts.pdf&lt;/a&gt;. Until this pattern changes, there will continue to be a need for educating and training more minorities to meet this demand. </p>

<p>I get so angry when I see patients with kidney failure, chronic diseases, or other ailments that have been mismanaged because the physicians didn’t comprehend cultural differences, financial issues, or just failed to communicate at the level of the patients. As an example, I spent 3 hours with one of my hospice patients last night trying to overcome these issues; her primary care doctor did not pick up on the cultural needs of the patient and just dropped the ball! Physicians are usually more than competent with the science, but fail miserably with the intangible interpersonal skills.</p>

<p>If it was up to me, I would reduce the GPA, MCAT score requirements, give points for people who challenged themselves with harder majors, and recruit a very diverse student body for medical school. Remember, the goal is to produce physicians who can best service a wide range of patients. Scores aren’t everything. One of my classmates scored a 21 on the MCATs. Now, he is chief of surgery at a top 5 hospital. While in medical school, some of my classmates complained about affirmative action allowing unqualified black students in (including the black student who had among the top 3 scores on every exam), they complained these students were underperforming (including the black student who scored a 97th percentile on the USMLE), while they completely ignored my white classmate who had the 21. The lesson I learned was that people exaggerated affirmative action altogether and ignored the special opportunities that even non URM received, such as legacy points.</p>

<p>I don’t believe the OP at all!! I think he is a complete ■■■■■. Without the data and references, I can’t call this thread “the truth about minority admissions”. It is more like, “my whining about what I believe is occurring with minority admissions”.</p>

63

<p>@frugaldoctor: I agree. It just appears the medical profession has “slipped” in terms of what it is about (as you describe it), and the admissions scheme and behavior of incoming medical students reflects it. And after seeing many of these students, I actually question how good many of the students of today are at science more so than absorbing and regurgitating scientific facts. To keep a high GPA in undergrad, many pursued classes and instructors (and yes, there are even organic chemistry instructors whose classes are reduced to just memorizing reactions and their mechanisms that weaker, squeamish, or lazier students can choose. Little to no application or analysis is demanded by these instructors. Some general chemistry and intro. physics instructors reduce the course to only require algorithmic problem solving skills where problem types can be memorized and essentially repeated on the test. This would be more difficult to get away with if pre-meds were required or strongly encouraged to take calc. based physics…) that emphasized only that sort of learning (this sort of thing is what they did well with in high school and are very comfortable with. Having a class that requires very high level problem solving and use of analytical skills, while doable for reasonably talented students, is too risky to the GPA. Better to just keep memorizing their way to superficial success in college and then wait to apply their analytical abilities on the MCAT). In the case of the MCAT, since students at elite schools are already good at standardized multiple choice tests (such as the SAT which supposedly tests critical thinking to some degree), all that was needed was some nice prep time or a class to teach them the tricks of the test (same as SAT, just harder). They already have an advantaged regardless of if they chose classes that developed there analytical abilities or not. </p>

64

<p>@SummerAus - Thanks for your comments, and good luck with your college applications. </p>

<ol>
<li>You stated, “a type of affirmative action exists/has existed in most countries, for many reasons.” </li>
</ol>

<p>While true, just because something exists in many other countries means: 1) it really makes sense, 2) solves an actual problem, and 3) does not cause more problems that it solves. The most obvious case-in-point is slavery, which still legally exists in over half the countries in the world. Does that justify slavery in any sense for whatever reasons it exists? Of course not. Same with affirmative action - the larger the group practicing it does not justify it more or give it more relevance.</p>

<ol>
<li>You also state. "if you see someone of your gender/race, when that grouping has historically been something causing discrimination, in a position of power, it will inevitably give you more hope to do the same thing and give you greater motivation as it can seem actually possible. " </li>
</ol>

<p>While this sounds philosophically accurate, history does not support the statement. Again, slavery in the US (and other countries) proves the opposite. Slaves did not need to see other black people in power to know that they should not be slaves and fought like mad to be free. No one needs to see people like them in a particular position to then know what they can do and when to do it, unless they are just plain clueless and need to be led by the hand. </p>

<p>Look at all the black entrepreneurs in the 19th century and early 20th when there were no one like them in sight and not one government program giving them money. Sorry, this idea that minorities are not smart enough to create and be who they want to be unless they see someone like them doing it first is a modern fable made up by people who make money selling the dependency myth. </p>

<p>I believe people are much smarter than that. I do not buy into the theory that minorities cannot think ahead and see and create opportunity without being guided by someone of their race in front of them. If someone has that approach, that is a self-imposed limitation that had to be constructively taught. </p>

<ol>
<li>You state the real problem with the program and what the people pushing the program have peddled, “As minorities make up a majority of the underprivileged in the US,…”</li>
</ol>

<p>It is not true that the majority of poor, low socioeconomic, underprivileged people are minorities, (Sorry, if you were taught that) Actually, that is numerically impossible given the census numbers, The majority poor and lower class are white. There are not enough minorities in the country to have the majority poor and underprivileged be minority.</p>

<p>You are correct a socioeconomic approach makes the most sense, but affirmative action, as you have probably deduced by now, takes it cues by race. Thus, the fundamentals of the program are not in line with where the problem is - hence, the logical uproar about it. </p>

<p>@bernie12 You stated, “Also, when it comes to AA at jobs and certain types of companies, seems to be failing if it was supposed to significantly raise representation.”</p>

<p>Maybe that failure is a good thing. The goal of company is to make a good product. Companies deserve to fail at certain goals if they get into sociological nonsense that has nothing to do with production. The best thing a company can do for all people, including minorities, is to produce the best product at the lowest price. This lowers the purchase price for everyone, including minorities, and increases the consumer surplus; thereby raising the wealth of everyone - all minorities benefit there, not just a few that are hired. </p>

<p>Any government program that interferes with that production balance just adds deadweight loss, increases price per unit, lowers consumer surplus and lowers overall wealth for everyone. Yep, the government at work - institute a top-heavy program that supposedly helps a few, but hurts everyone in the process. But, it hurts the supposed beneficiaries the worst because no one believes they are qualified; that I believe is the biggest harm of all really. You alluded to this as well. </p>

<p>General Comments - Am I suppose to believe that minorities are not intelligent enough to see what is a great job or not, learn how to prepare like mad for that job and apply without a government program? (Better be ready for the 75+ rejections too, just like all my friends and I each got before we got our footing. If you are expecting a job after 50 applications, you are not trying hard enough.) Am I suppose to believe that minorities are so sheepish that they need to see someone else just like them in a position before they know they can do it too? Am I suppose to believe that minorities cannot, if they wanted to, study like all the top kids and get high scores? Well damn, I must be one messed up person because I believe they can do all that without government help.</p>

<p>But hey, wait, with government help, the message to minorities is they do not need to score in the tops to get the same thing as other kids; they do not need to be the best job applicant - in fact, they could be the lowest; and they do not need to produce the best product; they just need to be there to represent diversity. Hum, if I had someone giving me the same thing for less effort just because I tan differently, I too might learn pretty quick not to put the time and effort in to be the best. I could use that time to hit the beach and work on my tan. And I guess after a few generations I might even come to believe I cannot do anything without a government program. Sounds like exactly where some people are. I just hope I am not the only person who thinks all people are much more intelligent and innovative than that. </p>

65

<p>@awcntb: Why did you respond to that? I believe I qualified it (or some other things on the issue) with: “perhaps we aren’t good enough to break into those positions yet”. However, I actually doubt that that is always the case. I’m kind of a cynic when it comes to that. Something tells me that a lot of getting significant positions in companies is about “politics” (let’s not even pretend that it’s merely about the merit as we envision it. Unless shrewdness and even sliminess are included as components of merit, which would be fair given what is needed to successfully navigate such spaces) and unfortunately, no matter the qualifications or preparation of certain people, they are not always favored by the process for whatever reasons we would like to imagine. While I don’t expect URMs to be represented in such venues as much as they are in this country, I would have expected much more progress…This idea of “well, maybe they are not prepared enough for the interview or were not as qualified as the others” is not quite obsolete, but it I’m willing to bet that it is lesser so the case, so say what you want. You can do a lot without government help. I don’t see what this has to do with anything (such as this conversation). Private organizations are the main things being discussed and many such private organizations choose to employ their own version of AA or not. With that said, apparently many people, even non-minorities use or even “abuse” government help in its various forms, so let’s not go there.</p>

66

<p>Bernie, since you’re a detail guy, take a look at Doctoring, which is part of the OSCE. And the increasing focus on a range of student diversity.</p>

67

<p>@bernie12 I should have been a bit clearer there. Thanks for catching that. </p>

<p>I responded because I do believe the fundamental issue is the government program itself limits hires. There is money involved with AA (and other government programs), even if it is not given out as a a check for each hire; there are government contracts at stake (federal, state, municipal contracts plus tax breaks and other stuff) Government programs do something more insidious than people realize; they impose an illusionary cap across a company based on some false representation / diversity thing that I have not clue how some analyst deduces. The end result is illogical head counting in a company, which has nothing to do with production or business. </p>

<p>After that magic head count is reached by a company, it is no longer praised by increased contracts or public praise etc. It rarely matters where that head count is in the company. If the count is 65 minorities and 50 are in shipping, they still count as AA. </p>

<p>Now, here is the problem for the educated minorities - because they are automatically linked to a government program just because of AA, the first thing human resources does is see where they are in their illusionary head count. They have no choice but to check if they want the government favors and government analysts off their backs. The minority may be the best and most qualified, but may not get the job simply because the company gets no benefit of increased dollars from the government program if they have already reached their head count - they calculate government benefits in the gains of employing a person, in addition to his skills. </p>

<p>So, who does the company hire instead? The person who brings them a higher return, and it could be the less qualified person that they have to pay less to than the better qualified minority. The person is less qualified, but the company gains by paying him less because they calculate a loss of the government program business because of no gain for the minority hire. The net result is the company keeps its total labor costs in check and cost per unit in check. Costs were in check with the initial very qualified AA hires because the government program business made labor costs a wash. But, without the government program, there is no wash and the qualified minority is too expensive.</p>

<p>Without such a government program, companies would hire the person who allows them to produce the best product for the lowest price. Who would that be? I cannot deduce, but at least no one candidate would be saddled with artificially reduced value, which a government program automatically does to a candidate when that illusionary head count has been reached.</p>

<p>The real problem exposed by government programs is they, by definition, increase the costs of employment of the intended beneficiaries and the end result is less jobs in the arena. There is not way to avoid that because there is only so much money to go around. Raise costs somewhere; then costs must be reduced elsewhere.</p>

68

<p>I am confused…show’s over. Don’t bother explaining the relevance of this again, I’m sure I won’t catch on.</p>

<p>@lookingforward: Yes, I am a fan of practicals (thanks for bringing that up). They just make sense and test “long term” competence. That isn’t just good for increasing “fairness”, it’s better for actually measuring competence (so that our increasingly diverse group of people in the health professions are also well-prepped). If only stupid things like the boards worked differently (seriously, this non-stop emphasis of multiple choice exams…because that’s how science and medicine works at all. You always have some seconds to “get the right answer” out of a pool of several. This country and its obsession with with multiple choice. I know we’re large, but if AP and IB can make partial FR work, these exams need to grow up as well and find some way of making it work). Everyone knows that med. students just get a bunch of prep books to essentially do a sort of extended cramming just for that exam as they forget most of the stuff that was being shoved in their brains in the lectures that was supposedly prepping them for the boards. And the boards are a very interesting exam. People claim that it tests critical thinking but I looked at some sample questions and it appears not to be the case. It appears that it’s still about memorizing except that it’s higher level memorizing than before because instead of memorizing isolated facts as they may for the exams in their med. school courses, they need to memorize specific scenarios (like they would be presented with some results that measure x,y, and z levels in a patient and then be asked to choose the correct disease…). Needless to say, they probably forget a huge chunk of the stuff they memorized for step 1. </p>

<p>The current method of education and assessment in medical education (at most med. schools) appears obsolete (the body of “knowledge” in science keeps growing and focus should be shifted to chronic conditions and disease which require more nuance than simple diagnoses of rare or common disorders/conditions. And when the former and the latter co-exist, even more nuance is required). Anyway, in my opinion, perhaps the MCAT (especially the new one) or GRE subject tests are even better at testing critical thinking and analytical skills than step 1 is. Kind of pathetic that the level of cognitive ability required on medical school assessments is perhaps much lower than many high rigor undergraduate courses in science (oh wait, many pre-meds won’t go near those). I know medical students need a “solid foundation of knowledge”, but they need not stop there (what about using it to analyze or understand novel situations or to ask the right questions?). This is the weakness. Instead of challenging students with a nice mixture of ambiguity, complexity, and volume, it appears to mainly be volume. I applaud our future doctors (no matter how lame some were during undergrad) who endure or tolerate that. I for one am a science type of guy. I like the problem solving, analysis, rich context, and creativity that comes with learning actual science and the scientific process. You remove most of these components, there is no way I’ll enjoy it or be successful at learning it. I also like retaining large chunks of what I was exposed to, whether it be actual methods of solving problems in the subject or simply the skills emphasized in the course (and again, from HS, I know how to memorize and problem solve algorithmically. Best to build other skills). Learning for me does not occur for the sole purpose of passing the next assessment or checkpoint in my path to whatever.</p>

69

<p>I’m not in admissions but if I was, I would be attempting to choose students who would not only do well in college but would also use the skills involved in getting that education- critical thinking, inquisitiveness, and more- in all aspects of their lives after graduation. By reading the discussions on this thread, it looks to me like Emory is doing something right by selecting students like Bernie and the OP who are examining current issues, proposing solutions, and by doing so, will create positive changes. If you consider that this quality came through on applications- in essays and recommendations, then that speaks at least as loudly (if not more) than SAT scores or demographics. </p>

70

<p>^ And there is a very real difference between kids who weren’t at the top of the heap in hs and those who weren’t but show they know how to successfully seek help, who have resilience, and determination. College app stats are a moment in time. These other skills are more about life strengths. </p>

71

<p>For some reason, people like to discount students who did well in high school. The truth is, plenty of people were at the top of the heap in high school AND ALSO are inquisitive, critical thinkers, etc. Like Bernie was. They should be here more than people who were not at the top of the heap.</p>

<p>Everyone likes to talk about the people who didn’t do well in high school and then did great in life. Why don’t people talk about those who did well in high school and then great in life? Because that particular list is too damn long.</p>

<p>@frugaldoctor<br>
Your third paragraph is still a completely unfair argument. Except for the bonus points for tougher majors.</p>

72

<p>There was no argument, they stated an observation. It’s somewhat true. A URM is more likely to be underestimated. Again, I experienced it myself (and so have many others) because of the assumption that we were AA admits (I’m sure plenty of us may have been, but that doesn’t mean URMs deserve differential treatment or snide behavior behind their backs) . It seems no one really questions whether a non-minority was “qualified” based on the generally accepted metrics. That is indeed an observation, not an argument. </p>

<p>Also my concern is not that the right people aren’t getting into college or good ones, but more so what is done with them when they get to college to further develop their intellect and attitudes. A good HS performance is certainly indicative of “drive”, some levels of intelligence, and generally good traits that are conducive to further development. However, those good traits should either be enhanced at college or even before they come to make sure that we can all function well in this complex world. Conditions shouldn’t be such that a student is basically encouraged to remain at the same level. Even really good “students” can become better (ideally, you would want to transform them into some degree of a scholar and I do not equate a scholar with a student in all cases. One is more or less a very deliberate life long learner). I would be partial to admit seemingly good students (or those with potential) who also display a drive to actually enhance themselves academically and aren’t just willing to jump through academic hoops. I’m sure admissions tries to gauge things that display such characteristics, but it’s hard I suppose. The supplemental essay prompts that Emory added at least gauges a mixture of creativity and curiosity. I suppose their is just a difference between the hoop jumper and the student who has done a lot to develop their talent even outside of the classroom. </p>

73

<p>I haven’t been reading most of this thread, so I am really not qualified to say much about it (and I have no idea how the conversation shifted to this). But, what he said really has nothing to do with AA being good/bad for students.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Some people are stupid jerks. In other news, water is wet.</p>

<p>I completely agree with everything else he said, though. And with everything you’ve said so far (that I’ve read).</p>

74

<p>I just tied his 3rd paragraph to AA. They basically said that students at their med. school would complain about how certain students got their “unfairly” (but did not notice how a non-minority was below the threshold) This is likely an allusion to AA in the admissions process that they were referring to. Unless we are referring to different posts, that is what I got from it (I thought they only posted once). And yes, those people are jerks but in a “racialized” context I guess. Unfortunately, people like that still exist…I don’t completely agree on the credentials thing. I believe if they could make a “good” and less predictable standardized test, it would make sense. It would also be interesting if leading schools would create their own admissions exam for those that it displayed interest in once reviewing the secondary. They could use it during interviews (which are more than one day) or something to narrow down the pool even more, and it could be a free response sort of exam that would test things like experimental analysis in biological and chemical sciences or perhaps probe how the student would respond to certain scenarios (actually many interviews have integrated problem solving into the process so as to prevent student from preparing canned responses). In addition, certain schools whose reputations are good enough so that they can pay less attention to their rank should find a more clever way to weight GPAs or find out the meaning behind them. </p>

75

<p>

Stop putting random words in quotes. Geez, man.</p>

<p>I was under the impression that this thread is about undeserving people getting admitted while deserving people (who are a more competitive race) do not. But, as I said, I’m sure the topic has changed in the 5 pages.</p>

<p>But anyway, the URM scored in the 97th percentile. He didn’t get in due to his URM status. He deserved to be there. As for the white kid who didn’t deserve to be there but got in because of his legacy status… HE represents the type of people this thread is about. Not the black guy who scored better than everyone else.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, people aren’t able to tell the difference between

  1. People who scored very well and also happened to be a URM
  2. People who happened to get admitted because they had a connection (URM, parent on board of directors, important family name).</p>

<p>The first group is the type who does extremely well, helps underpriveliged communities, etc.</p>

<p>The second groups is simply there because the university wants to be associated with that family name (Trump, Ambani, etc).</p>

<p>Schools do weight GPAs in their own manner.</p>

76

<p>It would be very cool if schools got some of their professors to get together and make their own admission test.</p>

77

<p>Aluminum boat and OP assuming this is a true post, it is not the “truth” about minority admissions and everyone does not know it to be true. My minority son got into Yale with competitive scores and grades etc. this is not his truth.</p>

78

<p>That’s Yale though…That could be more common at Yale (It would naturally get the applicants who are at the very top, minority or non-minority. In addition, it will yield them as well). Also, I’m sure that many did not have those scores and grades. It is not my truth either (and apparently I would have been on par for Yale stats. wise when I applied to Emory. I just didn’t know or really care about AA, so did not apply to Ivies or other super selective schools). The fact is, I’m sure many of the top schools admit the ones “on par” it’s just a matter of where they go. And you better believe that Yale probably admits minorities and legacy students who aren’t exactly in the middle-50. It is no different. It just has the name brand to yield those that it admits at the top of the heap (ones “on par”). I feel that in the first place, the OP should have been discussing who Emory yields and not admits. There are many QB scholars for example, and many of them are actually “on par” or very close. Let’s get real here. Many schools are willing to admit that not all the legacies and minorities they admit have the same stats. Like Williams College profiled one of its students (it was an article on giving under-represented parties such as those with a lower socioeconomic status a chance even if they had different, but promising credentials). Now what I could imagine, is that many minorities at selective schools do have on par stats because there are roughly 1500 that get above 700 on something. I’m sure a significant amount end up at selective institutions. However, I just wonder how common it is for those minorities to also be on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. I was, but I significantly benefit from being a nerd which is why I was able to do extremely well on verbal and writing and slightly less well on math (I like the algebra involved in calculus, and not statistics/probability for example). </p>

<p>@aluminumboat: I don’t know how to use any other functions (such as italics) on this board, so I use quotes to cover my behind (I for example, know that many people would not view that as unfair. It’s a subjective thing). I would italicize stuff if I knew how. It wasn’t random. I tend to put in quotes things that can be taken differently by different readers, ones where there may not be a widespread agreement. As for med. schools weighting…not convinced. Chicago and MIT students would be faring much better. An MIT student, who on average has a higher MCAT than a Duke student, needs a slightly higher GPA to get into a medical school on average. That’s not good. As good as Duke has gotten, the rigor is no where near the level of MIT and Chicago yet in sciences or anything else. Econ. could be approaching, but not really. The med. schools seem to care less about the Princeton students as well who can no longer count on the extra boost they would get from taking humanities and social sciences classes. They call themselves holistic, but undergraduate admissions are probably better in this arena (and undergrad. institutions get more applications. This argument that the med. school adcoms don’t have time is BS. They should figure out how the UG adcoms do differentiate different schools that are maybe outside of the Ivy League or gauge course rigor). I’m sure all med. schools like students from the top schools, but it seems like they don’t take into account differences between just as law schools don’t care about your major or institution when looking at your GPA. Professional school admissions is still mostly a numbers game despite the exceptional admits one may hear of. At least MBA programs are a bit more reasonable overall. </p>

79

<p>

Oh my gosh. I literally just posted about this.
You are not making the distinction between people who score well, are admitted, and happen to be URMs. Versus people who did not score well (at all), happen to be admitted, and are URMs.</p>

<p>Yale always picks from the upper tail, btw.</p>

<p>[ b] to start a bold.<br>
[ /B] to end it. Without the space. </p>

<p>[ quote ] to start a quote [ / quote] to end it without the space.</p>

<p>[ i ] to start italics. [ / i] to end them.</p>

<p>And okay. I thought you were talking about how undergrad admissions. How they recalculate high school GPAs. Not medical school admissions.</p>

80

<p>But even at any Ivy, there is a large pool of kids who may not have the stat strengths, but nonetheless are desirable for solid academic reasons. CC talks too much about AA, yield, passion. For the real analysts of all this, it’s more significant how the kids proceed through college (academically and in other respects) and what the grad rates are. The good schools take seriously their responsibilities to the individuals, the class and the U. There is an assumption on CC that adcoms don’t have access to data, don’t know which sorts of attributes and academic markers lead to success. They do.</p>

<p>That’s success, btw, in far more important terms than freshman or soph gpa. or who enters as stem and sticks with it.</p>