In determining success, character > GPA (NYTimes article)

Med School Insiders
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
For the many too lazy the read the article, here's a brief summary:

- NYC high school prides itself on sending a bunch of inner-city URMs to college
- Some of them fail out, many of whom were the top performers in high school
- School proposes a CPA (character point average, analogous to GPA)
- Most significant character trait is 'grit' (measured by self-reported survey)
- Conclusion: each student should graduate with both a GPA and a CPA
 
Yeah, so we should limit tests and gpa measurements and gauge potential success on "character" and "grit," which are self-reported.

Yeah, that will work. 👍

These radical ideas to fix education may work on a small-scale, but the emphasis put on them by NY Times/every media source is ridiculous.
 
Sorry but I think you guys are missing the point...

The NYTimes article demonstrates that educators are learning through studies that character qualities (grit, perseverance, social intelligence, etc) are ultimately more instrumental in the long-term success of students than are intelligence or GPA alone. I found the thoughts of the educators who comment in the article to be very inspiring.

Here is what I think the real point of the article is (or at least what's most inspiring)

Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pokémon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude.

In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to "the good life," a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling.
Click to expand...

Duckworth's early research showed that measures of self-control can be a more reliable predictor of students' grade-point averages than their I.Q.'s. But while self-control seemed to be a critical ingredient in attaining basic success, Duckworth came to feel it wasn't as relevant when it came to outstanding achievement. People who accomplished great things, she noticed, often combined a passion for a single mission with an unswerving dedication to achieve that mission, whatever the obstacles and however long it might take. She decided she needed to name this quality, and she chose the word "grit."
Click to expand...

the Character Education Partnership published a paper that divided character education into two categories: programs that develop "moral character," which embodies ethical values like fairness, generosity and integrity; and those that address "performance character," which includes values like effort, diligence and perseverance. The CARE program falls firmly on the "moral character" side of the divide, while the seven strengths that Randolph and Levin have chosen for their schools lean much more heavily toward performance character: while they do have a moral component, strengths like zest, optimism, social intelligence and curiosity aren't particularly heroic; they make you think of Steve Jobs or Bill Clinton more than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi.
Click to expand...
The obvious conclusion from this quote (from the advice/insight of these education administrators) is that all these historical people had different character qualities that made them successful.

etc. read it for yourself.
 
Dead philosophers are relevant to modern education how?
 
The idea is that character values are conducive to success... Just read the article...
 
No. I think you are missing the point.

Having a great character and all is good. But how do these qualities apply to the real world on a massive scale (like in college/med school admissions)?

Are we supposed to fill out a survey to determine our "grit" to be accepted to medical school? What about those great people who just can't get a good MCAT score or gpa? You know someone like this. They really want it, but they just can't cut it. GPA/standardized tests aren't perfect, but at some point, you need a method to compare a huge population, and you need a way to show that students are actually learning something.

All these personal qualities listed in the article are great. But many of them lead to a high gpa too! (crazy, I know).

These education-reform articles are just full of generic buzz words that have no practical purpose on a large scale.
 
Well, I'm not trying to suggest anything about the structure of med admissions, but I just thought the article had good things to keep in mind as we go about the challenging field of medicine and life in general. Focusing on developing these traits in ourselves (discipline, grit, perseverance, and softer character qualities) hopefully will help us become better doctors and probably be more successful overall. Of course it's important to think about academics, but I think a narrow focus on academics alone misses the big picture - long-term success depends on much more, and we'll need more as premeds to survive this long road (according to the Times at least). every person will have their own reflections/opinions/applications on this - thats why I called this "food for thought"... just some interesting reflections on characteristics of long-term success.


Barcu said:
What about those great people who just can't get a good MCAT score or gpa? You know someone like this. They really want it, but they just can't cut it.
Click to expand...
I would argue that if these people are really that 'great' and they have perseverance, social intelligence, character, gratitude, grit, etc. they'll find a way to be successful in any field, it's the person who applies to med school 3 times and finally gets in, the tenacious person who never gives up, the successful business person, the inspiring politician - these people have these qualities, and charisma, tenacity, etc. that motivates success. GPA alone won't stop or create a great doctor or successful politician... but a lack of character qualities will. Anyway... just my thoughts. Not saying I have any answers, just I thought the article had cool ideas.

I have to eat lunch now... bye for now haha
 
Last edited:
None of the haters in this thread show signs of having read and comprehended this article. No wonder people struggle with VR on the MCAT so much. Several points:

1) No one in this article recommended that character or grit should play a role in admissions. The only place in the article where putting formal weight on character is discussed is when Randolph explicitly says that this would be an invitation to gaming the system.

2) This article is mostly written about education of middle school kids. Grit may be a better indicator of ultimate success for these kids, without meaning that grit is more important than GPA for all people in all circumstances. It's easy to imagine how a middle school kid struggling with, say, dyslexia, would have a bad GPA, but that with perseverance and grit be able to overcome that and succeed brilliantly in life. If he still hasn't figured out how to deal with his dyslexia in college, and it's ruining his GPA at that point, he is going to have a much more difficult time coming back from behind.

3) The article mostly discusses educators trying to instill more character and grit into their students. To the extent that they talk about measuring it at all, it's mostly as a tool to help them better inculcate these important values in the kids.

4) Middle school students still have very plastic personalities and values. Their character is developing. This puts them in a very different situation than the majority of the jackanapes here on SDN. If your character still sucks in college or med school, it's probably too late for you.
 
phltz said:
None of the haters in this thread show signs of having read and comprehended this article. No wonder people struggle with VR on the MCAT so much. Several points:

1) No one in this article recommended that character or grit should play a role in admissions. The only place in the article where putting formal weight on character is discussed is when Randolph explicitly says that this would be an invitation to gaming the system.

2) This article is mostly written about education of middle school kids. Grit may be a better indicator of ultimate success for these kids, without meaning that grit is more important than GPA for all people in all circumstances. It's easy to imagine how a middle school kid struggling with, say, dyslexia, would have a bad GPA, but that with perseverance and grit be able to overcome that and succeed brilliantly in life. If he still hasn't figured out how to deal with his dyslexia in college, and it's ruining his GPA at that point, he is going to have a much more difficult time coming back from behind.

3) The article mostly discusses educators trying to instill more character and grit into their students. To the extent that they talk about measuring it at all, it's mostly as a tool to help them better inculcate these important values in the kids.

4) Middle school students still have very plastic personalities and values. Their character is developing. This puts them in a very different situation than the majority of the jackanapes here on SDN. If your character still sucks in college or med school, it's probably too late for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of it is about middle school, so I would agree with some of what you said.

But the Riverdale school first mentioned is a high school, and they talk about eliminating AP tests and assigning less homework.

Also, how about this tidbit from the article:

"For Levin, the next step was clear. Wouldn’t it be cool, he mused, if each student graduated from school with not only a G.P.A. but also a C.P.A., for character-point average? If you were a college-admissions director or a corporate human-resources manager selecting entry-level employees, wouldn’t you like to know which ones scored highest in grit or optimism or zest? "

So yes, they DID mention about using it in admissions, and it's not just about middle-school students.

Yes, it's speculation and musings, but clearly this article is showing this type of system in a positive light and may be a next step in educational reform.
 
School should not be brainwashing.
 
Epic-Facepalm.jpg
 
Last edited:
Frazier said:
There should be a Burnett's Law applied to this too.
Click to expand...
I agree. I lurk the SDN forums quite a bit, and too often I see users respond to positions or statements that they disagree with by saying that their opponents would make poor doctors, or must do poorly on VR. Ironically, NickNaylor's the only user I know of who got a perfect VR score, yet I've never seen him claim that others have poor reading skills/must do poorly on VR.
 
Frazier said:
There should be a Burnett's Law applied to this too.

In addition to someone inevitably "going to make a terrible doctor", it seem that when someone wants to claim that [someone else] doesn't read something/comprehend something on an internet forum that suddenly...

"Eureka! The causation is undeniable! People's VR scores are now fully elucidated upon. It's no wonder, old chap, that you scored so low/people struggle so much with VR on the standardized exam -- you didn't pay enough attention to the message forums and/or my internet argument!"


...It's just a rather extraneous phrase to tack onto things (there is a dog in your front yard? no wonder you aren't in med school -your meant for vet school; there are too many stars in the sky for you to count? no wonder you have such a hard time with calculus; the eagle flies at midnight? no wonder you're socially awkward)...if you start looking for it, you'll find it. I've seen this "verbal reasoning reasoning" from the full spectrum of posters -- from LizzyM to 1st-time trolls. 🙂
Click to expand...

The issue here is that people are unable to read, comprehend and criticaly evaluate an article published in The New York Times. It is similar, but longer, than sample verbal passages on the MCAT. It is quite possible that those who can not make a critical appraisal of an NYTimes story would also struggle with the verbal section of the MCAT. I don't see what's illogical about that.

Someone wants to have a high level discussion of an interesting development in k-12 education and some people are incapable of reading and discussing it intelligently or they want to discuss without first having read the passage.

We talk quite a bit about evidence based medicine and it requires a substantial amount of critical reading. Applying that criteria to this article, what evidence is there that an assessment of a student's grit is a valid measure of their ability to do well in school? The answer is in the story if you want to take the time to read it.
 
I read and comprehended it just fine.

It's just a stupid article. Grit? Haha, seriously.
 
centrigeugle said:
I read and comprehended it just fine.

It's just a stupid article. Grit? Haha, seriously.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt in my mind that there are certain character attributes that tend to make individuals more successful than others. The difficult chore (which is the focus of the article) is trying to 'teach' these attributes as well as measure them in a given person... much easier said than done.
 
Frazier said:
No, no, you missed my point...
I'm not discussing the merits of the article or the discussion that evolved around it.

The point was a simple observation: the way that many SDN users like to so [eloquently] point out "Ah, no wonder so many pre-meds have difficulty with VR", or "No wonder your VR score is so low". It's just an irrelevant aside, one that almost always seems to be brought up purely as a jab.
Click to expand...

A lot of discussions here relate to a particular article, whether it be about character, physician's pay, health care reform, or something else that's topical or controversial or interesting. It seems like most of the posters read along until they find the first thing that excites them, or that they disagree with, or that they do agree with, and then pretty much tune out the rest of the article. They come up with some cartoonish image of the author and what his agenda is, and become totally fixated on that. They've made up their mind about the article, and they won't let anything else that's actually in the article affect them. For the remainder of the discussion, they're just trying to score points on the "other" side to help shore up their own argument. There's no effort to understand what other people are saying and possibly question their own positions.

It's like the whole disaster with our media and politics on a micro scale. It's frustrating and sad. Maybe it's not so much a lack in reading skills as general critical thinking. The worst part is that I suspect most of these people are perfectly capable of thinking critically, they just choose not to.
 
LizzyM said:
We talk quite a bit about evidence based medicine and it requires a substantial amount of critical reading. Applying that criteria to this article, what evidence is there that an assessment of a student's grit is a valid measure of their ability to do well in school? The answer is in the story if you want to take the time to read it.
Click to expand...

An article is judged to be worthy of reading or not before one reads the entire article. It is also perfectly possible to have an opinion of an article before one reads it in its entirety.

In this case, the premise is so preposterous that I will choose to never read this article in my lifetime...

and also comment on it. :meanie:

Back to the point of the article:

"grits" is a terrible word. If there were any successful teachers of grits, it would be the ancient Chinese martial arts instructors. However, they were not very successful at teaching math and science, which is what our middle-school students need.

The problem: The majority of Americans are falling behind our Northern European peers in math and reading.

The solution: Teach them "grits". Anybody else see a problem with that?
 
Frazier said:
No, no, you missed my point...
I'm not discussing the merits of the article or the discussion that evolved around it.

The point was a simple observation: the way that many SDN users like to so [eloquently] point out "Ah, no wonder so many pre-meds have difficulty with VR", or "No wonder your VR score is so low". It's just an irrelevant aside, one that almost always seems to be brought up purely as a jab.
Click to expand...

And in almost every case, "if the shoe fits...."
 
phltz said:
A lot of discussions here relate to a particular article, whether it be about character, physician's pay, health care reform, or something else that's topical or controversial or interesting. It seems like most of the posters read along until they find the first thing that excites them, or that they disagree with, or that they do agree with, and then pretty much tune out the rest of the article. They come up with some cartoonish image of the author and what his agenda is, and become totally fixated on that. They've made up their mind about the article, and they won't let anything else that's actually in the article affect them. For the remainder of the discussion, they're just trying to score points on the "other" side to help shore up their own argument. There's no effort to understand what other people are saying and possibly question their own positions.

It's like the whole disaster with our media and politics on a micro scale. It's frustrating and sad. Maybe it's not so much a lack in reading skills as general critical thinking. The worst part is that I suspect most of these people are perfectly capable of thinking critically, they just choose not to.
Click to expand...

So, we are sensationalizing by discussing an implication of this type of academic program that was directly referenced in the article and is most relevant to us as college/med students (ie admissions that was directly mentioned in the article)?

Cool.
 
If the author can't present an image that everybody likes, clearly the entire article and the author himself are beyond redemption.

This is why traditional media is falling behind social media in popularity.
 
Morsetlis said:
In this case, the premise is so preposterous that I will choose to never read this article in my lifetime...
Click to expand...
The premise (insofar as there is one) is that plenty of smart or even brilliant people don't amount to a hill of beans in life, because they lack discipline, organization, and a variety of other traits. I have good friends who are extremely smart, and sometimes do well in school, but also play a lot of computer games, procrastinate, avoid work, get distracted, etc, and who have really struggled with this sort of life skill. Sometimes they get great grades, and sometimes terrible. They aren't dumb, and they don't need extra tutoring in science or literature or whatever. They need to get a grip on themselves and to pull it together.

Morsetlis said:
The problem: The majority of Americans are falling behind our Northern European peers in math and reading.

The solution: Teach them "grits". Anybody else see a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the root cause of us falling behind. Is it because the math and reading has been presented to students poorly, or because we have a lot of students who are lazy and entitled, who expect things to be handed to them, who aren't prepared to do the hard work of reading and studying, who get derailed too easily and have too much trouble getting back on track? If even a little of the root of the problem is the second option here, why shouldn't schools (especially in the lower grades) put some effort into showing kids how to discipline themselves, set and accomplish goals, etc?
 
LizzyM said:
The issue here is that people are unable to read, comprehend and criticaly evaluate an article published in The New York Times. It is similar, but longer, than sample verbal passages on the MCAT. It is quite possible that those who can not make a critical appraisal of an NYTimes story would also struggle with the verbal section of the MCAT. I don't see what's illogical about that.

Someone wants to have a high level discussion of an interesting development in k-12 education and some people are incapable of reading and discussing it intelligently or they want to discuss without first having read the passage.

We talk quite a bit about evidence based medicine and it requires a substantial amount of critical reading. Applying that criteria to this article, what evidence is there that an assessment of a student's grit is a valid measure of their ability to do well in school? The answer is in the story if you want to take the time to read it.
Click to expand...

Sparknotes! <3 :meanie:
 
Frazier is right. He's not arguing whether or not critical reading/critical thinking are important to the practice of medicine, nor whether VR scores or a discussion of an NYT article are linked to a person's verbal abilities. He's just pointing out a backhanded ad hominem people use on this site all the time:
  1. I post an article that I like.
  2. Frazier does not like the article. He points out what he disliked.
  3. I tell him that the only reason he didn't like the article is because he can't read good and needs to learn how to do other things good, too.
  4. PROFIT!!!
  5. Anyone who doesn't like the article I posted must not have read it "critically." Or they are just dumber than I am. No other explanations will be entertained. I will subtly hint at your stupidity and consequent poor verbal abilities by bringing up the VR subtest and inferring that your score was low, or would be low if you took the test. Which is why I win the argument.

In addition to the "quick reply" button we should add to the forum a "quick Burnett's law" button and a "quick VR ad hominem" button, for as much as subtle insults are used as discussion-enders around here.



phltz said:
It seems like most of the posters read along until they find the first thing that excites them, or that they disagree with, or that they do agree with, and then pretty much tune out the rest of the article. They come up with some cartoonish image of the author and what his agenda is, and become totally fixated on that. They've made up their mind about the article, and they won't let anything else that's actually in the article affect them. For the remainder of the discussion, they're just trying to score points on the &quot;other&quot; side to help shore up their own argument. There's no effort to understand what other people are saying and possibly question their own positions.

It's like the whole disaster with our media and politics on a micro scale. It's frustrating and sad. Maybe it's not so much a lack in reading skills as general critical thinking. The worst part is that I suspect most of these people are perfectly capable of thinking critically, they just choose not to.
Click to expand...

You've actually just described all discussion on sdn in which there are differing points of view. It's not limited to the discussion of articles. I've never seen a disagreement on this site that didn't involve petty jabs or some sort of straw man tactic.

It's not going to change any time soon, so there's no real point in getting worked up about it. Expect it, ignore it, perpetrate it, whatever. It's part and parcel.

aSagacious said:
There's no doubt in my mind that there are certain character attributes that tend to make individuals more successful than others. The difficult chore (which is the focus of the article) is trying to 'teach' these attributes as well as measure them in a given person... much easier said than done.
Click to expand...

An interesting point, especially the difficulty of measuring character traits. And yet, in spite of this difficulty, some sort of character judgment is made in every single medical school interview. No one would recommend an applicant for admission without thinking that he or she has the "grit" to make it through medical school.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a lot of it is about middle school, so I would agree with some of what you said.

But the Riverdale school first mentioned is a high school, and they talk about eliminating AP tests and assigning less homework.
Click to expand...


The Riverdale school mentioned, if one reads just the first paragraph of the story, starts at pre-k and goes through HS. So, right there, I'm wondering about whether we're reading the same article.

I found it interesting that an evaluation that included the same "grit" (not "grits" which is something entirely different :laugh: ) questionnaire was predictive of success at West Point.
 
LizzyM said:
I found it interesting that an evaluation that included the same "grit" (not "grits" which is something entirely different :laugh: ) questionnaire was predictive of success at West Point.
Click to expand...
Now, if grits turned out to be predictive of professional success, that would be really shocking.
 
Is this really anything surprising? The idea that personal characteristics are just as important, if not more important, than academic ability? In missing one or the other, you're almost certainly limited somewhat in your success. Only with both can you really reach the limits.

That said, some of the business in this article is silly. I think most people will agree that the sense of entitlement and lack of perseverance - or "grit" - is dwindling in each generation. The real question is who should be teaching these values to children. I think most people would agree that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of parents, but if they should neglect that, does that mean the school becomes responsible for doing so? And if it has that responsibility, should it be giving students a rating based on some seemingly arbitrary set of values?

Hell, just look at the article: disagreement on what values are valuable is right there (the distinction between "performance" vs. "moral" characters) depending upon what the end goal is. How can a school possibly try to indoctrinate (I'm not using that in a pejorative sense) children with values when it can't even determine what values are most important, or what kind of success we're aiming for? I think it's asinine that schools attempt to value a child based on 24 chosen values, and to think that a child's future could be based on an arbitrary evaluation of moral values is ridiculous.

I understand that the administrators are simply trying to address a social problem, but something about this makes me uncomfortable. Sure, the school is an optimal place for children to be taught important values, but grading them on those values is a bit whack.
 
medzealot said:
yes, a very busy summer it was. Keeping it hot on the block, and what not, like one of my homies of yore 😉
Click to expand...

what zealot means to say is he's a closet gunner and spent his summer in remote Cambodia helping to deliver healthcare to thousands who had never seen a doctor before in their lives

(and simultaneously improving his application to Harvard -- how convenient)
 
NickNaylor said:
Is this really anything surprising? The idea that personal characteristics are just as important, if not more important, than academic ability? In missing one or the other, you're almost certainly limited somewhat in your success. Only with both can you really reach the limits.

That said, some of the business in this article is silly. I think most people will agree that the sense of entitlement and lack of perseverance - or &quot;grit&quot; - is dwindling in each generation. The real question is who should be teaching these values to children. I think most people would agree that the responsibility falls on the shoulders of parents, but if they should neglect that, does that mean the school becomes responsible for doing so? And if it has that responsibility, should it be giving students a rating based on some seemingly arbitrary set of values?

Hell, just look at the article: disagreement on what values are valuable is right there (the distinction between &quot;performance&quot; vs. &quot;moral&quot; characters) depending upon what the end goal is. How can a school possibly try to indoctrinate (I'm not using that in a pejorative sense) children with values when it can't even determine what values are most important, or what kind of success we're aiming for? I think it's asinine that schools attempt to value a child based on 24 chosen values, and to think that a child's future could be based on an arbitrary evaluation of moral values is ridiculous.

I understand that the administrators are simply trying to address a social problem, but something about this makes me uncomfortable. Sure, the school is an optimal place for children to be taught important values, but grading them on those values is a bit whack.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that it raises some warning flags when schools are choosing which values to try to teach kids. For the KIPP schools, though, it sounds like this was a very pragmatic direction to go, and that makes me feel a lot more comfortable about it. Their goal is to get kids into college that would never normally go to college, and to see them graduate and have a measure of academic success. Looking at their data, they saw that some of the kids with good grades and intelligence were doing surprisingly poorly, and some kids with mediocre grades were doing surprisingly well. They looked at the data, and decided that a fair number of their students were lacking in these sorts of higher level skills - assessing how you're doing and if you're making progress on your goals, formulating a plan and sticking to it, keeping yourself motivated in the face of setbacks, keeping a lid on it when you want to blow up at someone, etc. The administration didn't walk in with a plan to teach these kids some character, they walked in with a plan to get them through college. And then they looked at the data and realized they needed to shore up some other non-academic skills to achieve that goal.

It doesn't seem like social engineering to me, so much as a hard headed assessment of what it takes to reliably get as many of these kids as possible into college. They aren't doing this because of some abstract idea that it helps society or makes better citizens. They are doing it because they believe that it directly furthers the school's educational mission.
 
bucks2010 said:
what zealot means to say is he's a closet gunner and spent his summer in remote Cambodia helping to deliver healthcare to thousands who had never seen a doctor before in their lives

(and simultaneously improving his application to Harvard -- how convenient)
Click to expand...

Ummm... you do know he's already in med school, right?
 
this may already have been posted, I dont feel like reading the entire thread before I go to bed:

All of this garbage regarding the best use of statistics in evaluation is nothing more than garbage.

Pretty sure you could draw parallels between people who grew up in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and those who had a less spectacular outlook on life. Yet you don't see many people pushing schools to start using "socioeconomic status as a criteria for evaluation" so as to select only wealthy individuals. As extreme as it sounds, it more or less boils down to the same logic- evaluating someone based on one statistic that is taken to represent a wide-range of factors, most importantly environment. No single statistic will ever be able to account for an individual's unique environment, and furthermore, there is no reason to believe that such a statistic would be able to account for an individual's future.

Just take the statistics for what they are.

Kid who gets a 4.0 is at least successful, even though it could mean his grades are inflated.
Kid who got a 24 on the MCAT probably isnt as gifted in the prerequisite sciences and reasoning skills as the kid who got a 42, although I'm sure she/he might have equal potential.

Also, don't try to evaluate people's personal characteristics from the outside too much. I know this is sort of the crux of any admissions process, but I believe telling someone "hey, you don't seem to have a lot of 'fight' or 'grit' in you, so I'm going to give you a characterGPA of 2.5 so that other people know you probably won't succeed based on statistics" is taking it over the top.

Stop overcomplicating with excess garbage.school is needed to teach kids fundamental skills needed for their success, not evaluating their future success, which by the way they won't have if you fail to actually do the teaching part..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
SDN Article: Academic Advising Best Practices for Student Success: Insights and Strategies from 2025 HPSA Advisor of the Year Graham Greer
Replies
0
Views
336
Emil Chuck, PhD
E
G
  • Question Question
Activities Character Error
Replies
2
Views
860
wysdoc
wysdoc
S
PS Character Limit
Replies
2
Views
617
E. Leaf
E. Leaf
Liam K
Can we get some SMP success stories?.
Replies
0
Views
438
Liam K
Liam K
K
Decent GPA but multiple B's in prerequisites?
Replies
3
Views
603
Jason1211
J
Top