Top Schools - The Real Story

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
S

Street Philosopher

freebird
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2000
Messages
6,276
Reaction score
14
I was at my school's advising office and took a look at the the stats of accepted students to various schools. All the applicants were from my school, UCLA. So I check the stats for people who got into UCLA. I was expecting many around 3.7 which is near the average GPA on USNEWS. How naive of me! I was pretty saddened as I saw the FACTS... the data, not the little speeches people always give us. There were essentially two groups. One group with NO LESS than 3.8 GPA, and another group with with several 3.3's a few 3.4 and a rare 3.5. The MCAT scores however were mostly around 33 or less, not the crazy 36-38 I was fearing. Well, given these numbers I can't help but make assumptions.

THE PC VERSION: I being an Asian male do not consider myself to be eligible to be included in the pool of 3.3 GPAs either because I am not a URM or because I do not have mind boggling life experiences. END OF PC VERSION

I assume that the group I should be looking at is the group with the 3.8+.
Looking at those numbers, I realized that UCLA's "whole person" mantra is bullsh_t. Is it so hard to believe that someone with less than a 3.8 is an interesting person worthy of acceptance? For goodness sake! I am not exaggerating folks, everyone had over 3.8, not 3.6, not 3.7. THIS IS ALSO NOT A PITY ME POST.

I had the Dean of UCLA Med give a long inspiring speech about how he wanted interesting people, not necessarily those who got 4.0's. I think he forgot to add the part that said "... as long as they have at least a 3.8"

:mad:

I am very disillusioned by my findings
Members don't see this ad.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Schoolboy:
•

I figure the 3.3 - 3.5 are from URM's, those who got accepted because they are URM. This is not to say there aren't URM with higher stats, but these I assume are from URM's. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST, SO IT WILL NOW BE IGNORED.

I am very disillusioned by my findings•••••Sorry my disillusioned friend but this is bulls*t right here at it's best. Being a URM does not automatically get you accepted my dear misinformed friend....URM have to go thru an interview process to get screened and believe it or not URM also get rejected from med schools. Is this the attitude you will have once in medical school? "ass"uming every URM you see had a low gpa or mcat score? I think I will just ignore your entire Post!
 
Schoolboy,

I apologize for commenting on the point that you specifically wanted everyone to ignore, but I have to say that your assumption that the lower GPA acceptees are only URMs is assinine. Schools do not focus only on grades when they are reviewing a candidate. Most schools do have some sort of minimum GPA and MCAT they will consider. After the bare numbers, they look at the schools you went to, the difficulty of your classes, etc. They also look at what makes you a person--ECs, personal statement, etc. Of course schools want someone who has it all, including the numbers higher numbers (hence the larger proportion of 3.8 GPAs). But those people who have lower GPAs who were accepted could very well be ORMs or majority kids who have done something with their lives besides concentrate on numbers or on how they are being screwed by the system.

In the end, high GPAs in undegrad classes that really don't matter will not determine whether one is a good doctor.

mma
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hmmm I think you also ASSummed too much my dear "friend." You obviously skipped over the NEXT SENTENCE which reads "This is not to say there aren't URM with higher stats, but these I assume are from URM's."

Let me ask you this to see if this makes sense to you: Asian or white person accepted to UCLA with a 3.3. I rest my case! Sheesh
 
Ok fine, ignore that little part. Let's just say "I being an Asian male do not consider myself to be eligible to be included in the pool of 3.3 GPAs either because I am not a URM or because I do not have mind boggling life experiences." Is that politically correct enough? Let's discuss the matter at hand. Or not... because it was more of a rant anyway.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Schoolboy:
•Let me ask you this to see if this makes sense to you: Asian or white person accepted to UCLA with a 3.3. I rest my case! Sheesh•••••I personally know of Asian-American and Anglo-American applicants with GPAs LOWER than 3.3 who were accepted to UCLA. And many other fine schools. Should I rest my case, Schoolboy?
 
I don't necessarily agree with the logic in Schoolboys post, but he did not say that every URM has a low GPA etc. He was saying that he finds hit hard to believe that a non-URM would be accepted with the lower GPA. He clearly stated that he was "assuming" that there were URMs in the group with a higher GPA. This therefore makes it impossible to assume he will think that every URM that had the lower GPA.

Without seeing the actual profile of the applicants it is impossible say what the reasoning it. Perhaps the people in the upper tier are students who were accepted off the bat, and the lower tier are those who were waitlisted. But this would be saying that I assume that anyone that was waitlisted had a lower GPA.

Like I said, I don't agree with the logic, but don't blast a guy because he mentions URMs in his post.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Schoolboy:
•Let me ask you this to see if this makes sense to you: Asian or white person accepted to UCLA with a 3.3. I rest my case! Sheesh•••••I personally know of Asian-American and Anglo-American applicants with GPAs LOWER than 3.3 who were accepted to UCLA. And many other fine schools. Should I rest my case, Schoolboy?•••••Were they from UCLA Undergrad? I know other schools have much tougher grading systems. Don't rest your case yet.
 
Well, I'm reluctant to jump into this fray. But just to add some objective figures:

UCLA's 1998 Accepted class:

Race Avg GPA AVG MCAT
White/Asian 3.80 11.6
Black/Hispanic 3.32 9.5

Clearly GPA & MCAT are not (or at least should not) be a person's defining characteristics when it comes to admission, so take these stats with a grain of salt.

The site I pulled this data from is <a href="http://www.acusd.edu/~e_cook/" target="_blank">http://www.acusd.edu/~e_cook/</a> which shows the admissions info classified by race for all the UC schools for the last several years.
 
Therefore, Schoolboy, the frustration that you feel should be directed not at URMs with lower GPAs or ORM and majority kids with low GPAs and lives or even ORMs or majority kids with high GPAs--your frustration should be rechanneled into doing something to make you a better candidate/person/whatever. Majoring in biology and doing some lab work for some guy at your school and wheeling patients around in a hospital are not enough to make anyone interesting--these activities simply indicate that someone is trying to fill a mold.

Basically, you need to excel in what you love, while you do what you need to do well. If you love studying cuneiform script, then by all means do so. If you love analyzing tissues in a path lab, go nuts. If you love making furniture, build a whole house full. But have something to show for it--if not, your passions will be merely hobbies to adcoms instead of commitments.

This is what you should be concentrating on, not the GPAs of people who have gotten into X medical school.

By the way, I, too, know Asian males who have gotten into excellent schools with 3.3s or lower. It does happen more often than you might be scared into thinking.

Good luck.

mma
 
Why is it so hard for people to stick to the topic? Do you want to ignore the facts about there being two separate groups of applicants: super high GPA, and those with less than average GPA? Maybe the truth about UCLA's real numbers are too much for some of you to handle?

Or is it the case that it is your moral responsibility to set everyone straight about URM's? In which case how will you deal with patients who don't give a damn what your opinion on abortion or euthanasia is? Will you make them listen to you as well? Please get off that high horse, I was making a reasonable assumption, not making a conclusive, no-doubt-about-it comment.
 
Schoolboy:

I usually as a rule of thumb don't participate in AA debates. When I first got to the states I used to try to educate people against having a tunnel vision with regards race and medicine in general. I quickly gave up and developed a carefree attitude towards this seemingly "hopeless" situation. Call me cynical, but there will always be people that think medicine is all about GPA and what you scored on the MCAT. BTW what did you score on the MCAT? and what's your GPA? if you don't mind sharing.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by mma:
•Therefore, Schoolboy, the frustration that you feel should be directed not at URMs with lower GPAs or ORM and majority kids with low GPAs and lives or even ORMs or majority kids with high GPAs--your frustration should be rechanneled into doing something to make you a better candidate/person/whatever. •••••Thanks, you mean well. But that is not the point of my rant. My rant is not against URM's. I think URM's have an important role in society and in the medical school. I do not feel threatened by URM's "taking up my spot" or anything of the sort. My rant is about medical school admissions, and the fact that they claim they are about more than the numbers, when in fact the accepted pool all have extraodinarily high numbers. My rant is that they give a false sense that they are open to lower stats, when in fact this image is greatly exaggerated.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school. Check with your HPO advisor to make sure that no Asian-American applicants with a "lower" GPA from UCLA have been accepted to UCLA. Then, perhaps you can aspire to be the first. In the future, an Asian-American applicant from UCLA will look up the stats for UCLA acceptances and say, whew, I'm glad I can get in with a lower GPA because it has been done before. Good luck! :)
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
•My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school. Check with your HPO advisor to make sure that no Asian-American applicants with a "lower" GPA from UCLA have been accepted to UCLA. Then, perhaps you can aspire to be the first. In the future, an Asian-American applicant from UCLA will look up the stats for UCLA acceptances and say, whew, I'm glad I can get in with a lower GPA because it has been done before. Good luck! :) •••••I can't tell if that's sarcasm or good natured encouragement but I'll assume it's encouragement. I hope nobody feels it is their duty to correct this assumption as well. :rolleyes:
 
Schoolboy,

I think that on that point you are right. Schools want their matriculants to have it all--top scores, top schools, and interesting lives. For the most part, they can want this because people like this exist. Lots of them do, in fact. That is what makes applying to medical school so difficult--when you are thrown into the pool with other exceptional people who make outscore you while having equally amazing lives, you make be shut out.

Of course, some folks' paths to medicine is truly unique and, I think, these are the folks the adcoms are talking about when they say they are open to other things besides numbers. So, yes, schools' openness is exaggerated (especially since life experience of some sort is essentially a requirement), but I do think it is there if an applicant is unique enough.

mma
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
•My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school.•••••and by "fine" you mean...? I don't want to draw any far-fetched assumptions, but it seems you're indirectly implying that hispanic and african american students at UCLA have decreased the "fineness" of the school. It is NOT at all o.k to make such statements. You need to get out more often. A trip out of Texas every now and then wouldn't hurt much either.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Schoolboy:
•My rant is about medical school admissions, and the fact that they claim they are about more than the numbers, when in fact the accepted pool all have extraodinarily high numbers. My rant is that they give a false sense that they are open to lower stats, when in fact this image is greatly exaggerated.•••••Now THAT is a rant worth posting. I agree, but remember that a number is just an average, which implies a range. Sometimes at undergrad schools, the acceptance rates for students with MCATs 36+ are slightly lower than students in the 30-36 range. And so denied students with high numbers rant about a system that should reward academic "excellence" but in their eyes, does not. I'd go with mma and worry less about the numbers and work to put together a great application. Don't let the numbers intimidate you. Good luck.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Original:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
•My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school.•••••and by "fine" you mean...? I don't want to draw any far-fetched assumptions, but it seems you're indirectly implying that hispanic and african american students at UCLA have decreased the "fineness" of the school. It is NOT at all o.k to make such statements. You need to get out more often. A trip out of Texas every now and then wouldn't hurt much either.•••••In all fairness I think the context of that statement was directed at my original question: •••quote:•••"Were they from UCLA Undergrad? I know other schools have much tougher grading systems. Don't rest your case yet."••••So that post was saying sort of like, "why would you think 3.3 is acceptable at another school but not at UCLA, UCLA is a good institution too."
 
Original, I can pretty much guarantee that that was not what Sterling meant! He meant that he always believed UCLA was a good school (as in not a party school)!

And, Schoolboy, I think it was encouragement. :wink:

mma
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Original:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
•My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school.•••••and by "fine" you mean...? I don't want to draw any far-fetched assumptions, but it seems you're indirectly implying that hispanic and african american students at UCLA have decreased the "fineness" of the school. It is NOT at all o.k to make such statements. You need to get out more often. A trip out of Texas every now and then wouldn't hurt much either.•••••Wow, Original, you CAN be a jerk. Before I'm sorry I ever defended you in the past, I hope we can agree this is a misunderstanding. You did make a far-fetched assumption: my response about UCLA being a fine school was in response to Schoolboy's comment that other schools grade harder than UCLA. I've spent a lot of time everywhere and I'm more than a little pro-diversity. :p
 
And thanks Schoolboy and mma! We're having fun this morning. :)
 
Are you kidding? It's fun here all the time... :rolleyes:

mma
 
Sterling:

I am very very sorry I misread your statement. Funny how I mentioned in an earlier post that stereotyping is bad, just for me to turn around and lump the state of Texas in a little plastic bag. We cool? :p :wink:
 
I should have known that once I put those three letters on my post I'd be spending most of the morning clarifying what my post was about! :rolleyes:
 
Original,

It's all good. :)

Sterling
 
Nice!
 
HI,

I haven't read all the replies, but yes, that's basically true.

We were doing a litlle bit of statistical analysis for the pre-med office on the acceptances of student who graduated from WashU.

Looking at percent acceptances to top 10 schools (or maybed it was top 15 or 25, i forgot), we found an interesting correlation with GPA.

Above 3.75, there is a direct correlations with science GPA and percent acceptances. NOt only that, 3.6 to 3.75 is the LOWEST percent admission. It's a "two hump" distribution: people with 3.4/3.3 GPA get in because of "other issues" (I am not going to start a debate of what those issues are and URMs, etc). And about 3.8 or so, it's GPA that gets you in.

But, even though there average is 3.6 to 3.7, NO ONE with that GPA gets in. Really speaking, most students are 3.8 to 3.9.

Thus, school average GPAs are somewhat deceiving.

more questions, let me now.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Schoolboy:
•Hmmm I think you also ASSummed too much my dear "friend." You obviously skipped over the NEXT SENTENCE which reads "This is not to say there aren't URM with higher stats, but these I assume are from URM's."

•••••You said "I figure the 3.3 - 3.5 are from URM's, those who got accepted because they are URM."

Then you go on to redeem yourself by saying
"This is not to say there aren't URM with higher stats, but these I assume are from URM's. "

Sometimes we say/write some wrong things without realizing what we are really saying/writing. I am sure you are a nice person who means well but you shouldn't have made your first assumption to begin with.
 
Sonya:
I see your point, but considering the small (almost insignificant) numbers of such anomalies, I think the published average GPAs are actually very representative of the truth. If anything, they are higher than the actual stats. Schools craftily publish ACCEPTANCE stats and make no mention of their MATRICULATION stats. At every school, the Accept-stats (as published by the US news and several other sources) are higher than the Matric-stats.
 
I'm really glad i tried to avoid mentioning URMs...

somehow you say it, and a posts meaning purpose gets forgotten...

I didn't even read the replies with the first post, but somehow expected all that.

If people want graphs of the data we have, I MAY be able to show it (the data itself is to be kept within the school).

But, we have statistics of which school the pre-med class of 2000 at Wash U matriculated at, got acceptances at, and got rejections at. And for each student we know GPA, and all MCATS. and we made graphs of those, and sorted it by type of school and such.

but, if people like school boy, or anyone else has interest, i may be able to tell you something... but i'm not too sure how much i'm allowed to share. (the data is what AMCAS sent to our pre-med office).

Anyway, schoolboy, you're points are true...GPA is finally much of the currency... but, let's face it, EVERYTHING is important. Top school get the cream of the crop. They get people w/ 3.8 + plus GPA AND good ECs, health care experience, good personality. etc. They get to call the shots.. that's what makes them top ten.

You can PM me or e-mail me [email protected] if posting will create too much controversy or whatever. :D

Sonya
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Sonya:
•HI,

I haven't read all the replies, but yes, that's basically true.

We were doing a litlle bit of statistical analysis for the pre-med office on the acceptances of student who graduated from WashU.

Looking at percent acceptances to top 10 schools (or maybed it was top 15 or 25, i forgot), we found an interesting correlation with GPA.

Above 3.75, there is a direct correlations with science GPA and percent acceptances. NOt only that, 3.6 to 3.75 is the LOWEST percent admission. It's a "two hump" distribution: people with 3.4/3.3 GPA get in because of "other issues" (I am not going to start a debate of what those issues are and URMs, etc). And about 3.8 or so, it's GPA that gets you in.

But, even though there average is 3.6 to 3.7, NO ONE with that GPA gets in. Really speaking, most students are 3.8 to 3.9.

Thus, school average GPAs are somewhat deceiving.

more questions, let me now.•••••Yes, that is EXACTLY the point I tried to get across. Very well said.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Original:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
•My bad--I had always assumed UCLA was a fine school.•••••and by "fine" you mean...? I don't want to draw any far-fetched assumptions, but it seems you're indirectly implying that hispanic and african american students at UCLA have decreased the "fineness" of the school. It is NOT at all o.k to make such statements. You need to get out more often. A trip out of Texas every now and then wouldn't hurt much either.•••••Technically, hispanic and African-American students have decreased the "fineness" of the school. Since average MCAT scores are an integral part of the US News ranking system, admitting a large percentage of low MCAT minorities does hurt the school's ranking.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by toobsllik:
[QBTechnically, hispanic and African-American students have decreased the "fineness" of the school. Since average MCAT scores are an integral part of the US News ranking system, admitting a large percentage of low MCAT minorities does hurt the school's ranking.[/QB]••••Although some URMs may have slightly lower scores perhaps due to some socioeconomic hardships and test biases, I believe that medical schools do an excellent job of finding qualified applicants, whatever their race or creed. Yes, I agree that accepting students with lower scores will decrease a schools ranking in USNews polls, but I beg to differ that this has any effect on the schools' "fineness." Schools, like UCLA, that take a large number of qualified URMs enhance their diversity. The consequences of this cannot be calculated in any statistic because they are so intangible that you can only "feel" it when you are at that school. These intangibles do eventually trickle down and create effects that we can see and capitulate into a number. UCLA has accepted numerous URMs in the past, and the school continuously improves its reputation, "fineness," and even in more superficial measures as the USNews poll.

Also, I am not a URM.
 
Meanwhile, the 8 URMs per class of 100 don't really affect things too much.

Jeez.

mma
 
I feel a little bit like I am at the TPR forum.....
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by cm7b5:
•I feel a little bit like I am at the TPR forum.....•••••I personally found the old TPR forum very entertaining. It was like watching Jerry Springer. The new TPR forum sucks very badly, but I don't blame them for their decision.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Wahoo:
•Well, I'm reluctant to jump into this fray. But just to add some objective figures:

UCLA's 1998 Accepted class:

Race Avg GPA AVG MCAT
White/Asian 3.80 11.6
Black/Hispanic 3.32 9.5

Clearly GPA & MCAT are not (or at least should not) be a person's defining characteristics when it comes to admission, so take these stats with a grain of salt.

The site I pulled this data from is <a href="http://www.acusd.edu/~e_cook/" target="_blank">http://www.acusd.edu/~e_cook/</a> which shows the admissions info classified by race for all the UC schools for the last several years.•••••everybody seems to have conveniently ignored wahoo's post.

frankly, i find the data disturbing. what happened to prop209?

don't flame me, i have no problems with urm's in med school. i do have a problem with schools not following the law (and the people's will)
 
I think they should have affirmative action for poor people, regardless of race. These are the people that are truly underrepresented. (I hope I spelled that right.)
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by cm7b5:
•I think they should have affirmative action for poor people, regardless of race. These are the people that are truly underrepresented. (I hope I spelled that right.)•••••i wholeheartedly agree. throw out the race-favoring and use socioeconomic instead
 
Schoolby I can understand what you are saying. Telling students the "average GPA" is something, say a 3.5, when you fit into a category when really the "average GPA" is a 3.8 or whatever is understandable. It is clear in the stats that were posted.

And Matthew, statistics like this are proably similar at most schools. From what I have heard, URM's compete against URM's for acceptances. Each school tries to fill their class with a certain amount of URMs. Because of this their averages are skewed in many cases.
 
•••quote:••••i do have a problem with schools not following the law (and the people's will)•••••Lots of not-so-great things have been laws that reflected the will of some fraction of the people. Use your imagination--I'm sure you can think of some juicy ones.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by Sterling:
• •••quote:••••i do have a problem with schools not following the law (and the people's will)•••••Lots of not-so-great things have been laws that reflected the will of some fraction of the people. Use your imagination--I'm sure you can think of some juicy ones.•••••i didn't mean i believe all law that is passed is good. sure, there are plenty of not-so-good laws. but prop209 passed with a big majority of california voters, not some group of politicians. california voters that are among the most progressive in the country.
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by mma:
•Meanwhile, the 8 URMs per class of 100 don't really affect things too much.

Jeez.

mma•••••In my post, I was referring specifically to UCLA which accepts far more than 8 URMs.
 
What's the TPR forum???
 
So URMs that have gpas higher than 3.3/3.4 don't get in?! Damn! I guess I'll withdawl my application for this year, get a few "D" grades in the interim and then apply next year so I can be in the 3.3./3.4 URM lump.
 
TPR: The Princeton Review forum.

Anyway, I thought California schools no longer have any URM/affirmative action policy?

I think anyone who works hard will eventually get what they want regardless of sex or color. My take is I agree to BOTH sides of the argument, yet all in all it boils down to simply doing your best to stand out regardless of where you are.

I don't deny the validity of the stats about certain groups garnering lower MCAT/GPA averages than other groups, but that doesn't mean that the OVERALL competition is less intense. If an Asian must vent about URMs with lesser stats getting the benefit, he/she must realize that he/she is not good enough to compete with the Asian pool. A URM who gets accepted follows the same path. It's a matter of looking at fractions rather than the whole in this case, because if you do, you'll end up depressed and frustrated.

Diversity is the driving factor for freedom in society.

In retrospect, there shouldn't be any bad blood between URMs and non-URMs because this action is defeatist. A URM who makes it to medical school is as qualified as anybody else. Purpose is 3/4 of worth. A Spanish-speaking doctor would be more useful in an area whose population requires that skill... so instead of a nonURM complaining about the disadvantage... learn Spanish! We should all make an effort to be homogeneous and available to all cultures. Improving that aspect of credentials is the solution and well worth it, even if it may not lead you to an acceptance. I myself took elementary Spanish. May or may not be a plus to admissions, but a definite improvement to myself.

In the end, the real people are those who contribute to society, URM or nonURM. The people who actually go to underserved areas and practice there. The doctors who HEAL first. GPAs, MCATs, science and everything else are secondary.
 
just a quick comment about Wahoo's website stat quote... that website has come up numerous times on this forum and each time, it was concluded that it was not real statistics, just something made up by people who were mad about not getting into med schoool. It's made to look like a very official site, but it's really just someone's homepage off of some CA private school (I think univ of san diego).
 
•••quote:•••Originally posted by coop:
•just a quick comment about Wahoo's website stat quote... that website has come up numerous times on this forum and each time, it was concluded that it was not real statistics, just something made up by people who were mad about not getting into med schoool. It's made to look like a very official site, but it's really just someone's homepage off of some CA private school (I think univ of san diego).•••••yea I heard that website was trash a very long time ago. tons of scapegoaters consistently quote or reference that website. and each time it's concluded that the statistics on that page are flawed. let's not forget that in the early 20th century statistics was used to classify African Americans as inferior based on Skull measurements in the famous "Bell Shape Cure" book. it was later confirmed that the statistics were flawed. wasn't it mark twain who wrote that you can use statistics to mislead or outright lie?
 
"Tere are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"- Mark Twain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

It’s Over!!!
  • Locked
The "real" med school rankings
Replies
2
Views
1K
gyngyn
gyngyn
E
Letter of Intent "Top 3/Top 2"
Replies
12
Views
2K
Emh_omega-323
E
Mr.Smile12
My Story (AAMC) on the value of diversity
Replies
0
Views
630
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
J
what type of leverage do I have for getting good financial aid offers at top-20 schools?
Replies
1
Views
682
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
Advice on personal statement story.
Replies
11
Views
1K
cj_cregg
cj_cregg
Top