Threads that go on for pages tend to get more traffic, which makes more people post on them.
And the questions get more intersting as the topic develops.
So now here's my deep dive into her article, by topic/complaint she espouses:
1. The double scholarship issue
I don't have much to say here, since I don't understand the rules involved. Several posters have said it's impossible, and others state it happened to them. In any case, it's uncommon so it doesn't surprise me that things didn't go smoothly. If the school had never been in this situation before, it wouldn't surprise me at all that when they get the VA payment after everything has already been covered, they would just roll it to the next semester. The error may not be any sort of nefarious event.
One thing worth noting: if she had kept her spot in medical school and lost her UTSW full ride, she still has a full scholarship. At least if I'm understanding the situation correctly, and the VA scholarship is for everything. If the VA scholarship is for less than the full cost, then it's obv more of an issue.
2. Conditional Pass
Per her description, a conditional pass is when either the final exam or the coursework is "narrowly short" of the 70%. She states that she got an incomplete in Microanatomy, but does not disclose why. It must be because her exam was <70%, else she would fail (as Incomplete is when the final exam is <70%). There is no mention of how "narrowly short" she was in this course, hence a CP might not have been an option at all. And, I expect that a CP is dependent upon satisfactory completion of other courses -- once she fails the next thing, they likely convert the CP to an incomplete or fail also (this is my guess, may be incorrect). She complaints about not getting an option of a CP, but it's not clear that she qualified for one - in microanatomy (we don't have enough info), nor in Anatomy -- which does not have a final. And I expect the CP is for someone who is otherwise doing well -- not someone who is barely passing other courses. But we'd need their full grading criteria to know.
So there is some chance she has a valid argument here -- but we're missing too much information to know. I don't expect this argument would be successful, unless she can show someone in similar circumstances who got this kind of treatment.
3. Anatomy grade
As already mentioned on the thread, Anatomy is different where there isn't a final. There are three exams covering 1/3 of the material. Just getting a 70+ on the last exam is great, but to pass you need to get a 70 average on all exams. I can't speak to the advice to not take the last exam at all, but as mentioned perhaps it was mathematically impossible for her to pass the course at that point. If so, her average in that class would need to be quite low -- 56% (assuming all three exams are weighted equally). It does make me wonder what the school's advice was really all about. Her complaints that Anatomy is managed differently than everything else are non-valid -- that was known prior to the course, and certainly wasn't changed to specifically impact her. And she can't get a conditional pass in Anatomy, since there's no final (if that is her complaint, which is somewhat vague).
4. Differential grading in anatomy
This is another point which may be true. I assume the anatomy exams are "fill in the blank" hence her missing the laterality. These types of tests are subject to differential grading if not done carefully. She claims knowledge of someone else with a different score for the same question in a quiz review. I have no idea if that's true or not, and since she seems to suggest that the exams are not turned back to the students for review I'm not certain how she (or anyone) would know this. But maybe the quizzes (different from the exams) were turned back to people, so perhaps some truth there. If she can actually show that there is differential grading and that she got lower grades --- whether that's on purpose, implicit bias, or simply an error -- she would have a valid argument. She would need to show enough of a problem to change all of the exams to get her grade about a 70%.
5. Withdrawal of the scholarship / changing of the website
This is probably the most interesting of the questions raised. It's very clear from the initial wording that failing 2 courses = losing her scholarship. With that:
A. Does getting an incomplete in a course count as a failure? On the one hand, one could argue that it isn't. "Incomplete" =/= "Fail". That's certainly her argument. On the other hand, one could argue that incomplete is simply a placeholder for a failed course while the student tries to remediate. That, as far as the scholarship is concerned, it's a fail. UTSW would need to show that other students in the same boat had the same outcome. This is something she could certainly argue in court. She states this is a contract issue -- and contracts are all about technicalities. And that's exactly what this is -- a technicality. I'm sure the school meant that if you get 2 incompletes you lose your scholarship, but they wrote the rules such that it's a bit vague. She would have some real chance of winning this argument. Although, since she ultimately was dismissed due to more failures (and not an inability to pay / forced to take out loans / etc), it's not clear what she would win. Not her spot back.
B. Can the school change the "rules" for keeping the scholarship? We are assuming that these new rules applied to her. And the question also is whether this is really a change in the rules, or just a clarification. But even if we say it's a change, whether or not the school can change the rules mid flight is again a contract issue. Does the contract state that these rules are fixed? Or does the contract state "per the rules in the handbook" and the handbook can change at any time. Because if so, the school can change the rules any time they want. if they do change the rules, I would ask whether they pass the "sniff test". if they changed the rules stating that to keep your scholarship you needed to score >80% on each course, I'd say that was very unfair (although might still be legal). But this change? I think this is reasonable, and is simply clarifying the issue.
6. Appeals
She makes multiple complaints that her appeals were not heard, or were not valid. The law is that schools must have some sort of appeal process for adverse actions -- there is no standard as to what that appeal may consist of. It does not need to include witnesses, or the student having a "presentation". It's simply some double check mechanism, should be by someone different than made the initial decision -- but the person assessing the appeal can get input from anyone they want. She appealed the withdrawal of the scholarship which was upheld. If she can show that the school did not follow it's policies regarding appeals, she could get her spot back. But an appeal isn't what "she wants", it's what the written rules call for. If it's just the chair or dean reviewing the decision along with a written statement by her, then that's all there is.
And the rules are lower down in her post -- she has a screenshot. It's super vague, as expected. All that's required is the dept chair and then the dean review the decision, and that's it. She's allowed to submit a statement in writing with all supporting documentation, and that's all.
7. Failing MSKS
She reports failing the final by one point. She has lots of complaints here. A) guidance of what to study was off base, B) appeals only form memory, C) she had three questions that the student committee decided not to appeal, D) curves were smaller now, and E) the deans reached out to her before grades were finalized to tell her she failed. The first four I think are meaningless. If the student committee decided not to appeal those questions, it's probably because they thought they were fine questions. The last point is of some concern, although the deans were probably aware of what the curve was going to be before it was finalized. They should have waited until it was all done.
She then wanted to appeal her own question list. That's not a thing. They had a question appeal process which they followed, she can't just then start appealing other questions. Again the appeal policy isn't included anywhere, but I expect it just allows a general appeal but not to change the scoring of specific questions. And this matches her description -- she appealed and lost at all levels. Again, an appeal isn't what she wants it to be, it's what the rules state.
Last she wants a conditional pass, which isn't an option since this is no longer 1st semester. And, I expect that a CP might not be an option once you have other failures / incompletes.
She received a full fail for this course. We don't have the school's full policy. There may be a limit to the number of incompletes -- there usually is, since there's only so much you can make up over the summer. Once you fail enough things, repeating the year is the only viable option.
8. Lawyer
This isn't one of her complaints, but an important point nonetheless. She got a lawyer involved. That's her God-given-American right to do so. But if she expects that everything will be hunky dory afterwards and she'll be given the benefit of the doubt, she doesn't understand how things work. Getting lawyers involved makes everyone follow the rules carefully, makes those you are contending with very unhappy, and likely happy to show you the door if possible. You can call that retaliation. I call it life. It's only retaliation if people then bend (or break) the rules to kick you out.
And the school's lawyers don't need to respond to her lawyer if they don't want to. if a lawsuit is filed, then they are compelled to respond. Else, they are welcome to ignore her lawyer for any reason they want.
9. Respiratory block failure
She starts by complaining that the grading was changed -- but it's clear this was changed by input from the prior year and had nothing to do with her. And she failed the exam, but by a very, very small margin. Again she says she was contacted before the curve / corrections were applied -- and if so, that's a mistake again on the school's part (although again the course director might know at that point what the corrections were going to be, unclear from her description). In any case, they should wait until scores are finalized.
Then there's all the emails about the "one point". I see that the language is confusing, but the answer seems clear to me. Three questions were dropped. She already had two of them correct, so she only got one point back for the one that was wrong. The wording isn't great in their email "no, those questions you answered correctly were continued to be counted in your favor and were not dropped". I think what they are trying to say is what has been said on this thread (and the comment on her medium post). If you got those three questions all correct, your score didn't change at all. if you got them all wrong, you get +3. She got +1. This isn't a "curve", it's a "gimme" -- free questions which everyone gets correct.
And now there is no way they can give her a half a point. Once they do that, she may ask for more points in the future and they will have set a precedent for everyone. And she's brought lawyers into the scene, so now everyone is following the rules. Rules say a 69.4 is a fail, so fail it is. And a 69.4 doesn't round up to a 70.
10. Dismissal
She complains that she was not allowed to attend the SPC meeting. She can only do so if the rules allow. If not, all she's allowed is a written statement. if the rules allow for her to be present, then she would have a legal action to get her spot back as her dismissal would be invalid. Otherwise, the SPC can dismiss her. Her complaints seem mostly invalid -- that the Deans were already biased against her (of which her only evidence is that other decisions didn't go her way). The "grading discrepancy" which doesn't appear to exist (and that they may have reviewed in the committee), that they didn't "investigate" anything (not clear that there's anything to investigate if the course leader explains how the discarded questions were credited back). Her comments that other people did worse, or that she was doing fine on some board study thing, are irrelevant.
She was not offered to repeat the year. Perhaps other people were allowed to in the past -- she mentions that with no evidence. But let's assume that's true. Why would they not allow her to repeat the year? Because #8. Because she was driving them crazy with all of these complaints. Repeating the year is a privilege -- something the school can offer a worthy student who seems to have turned things around and is likely to do better the second time. She is correct at the end -- she had worn out her welcome there, and they simply let her go. And there's nothing illegal about that unless she can prove it's because of her race or some other protected class.
So, TL;DR summary:
She may have some valid complaints / legal arguments. Whether the school was allowed to withdraw her scholarship with two incompletes rather than two fails and/or whether they could change those rules mid flight. Whether there was differential biased scoring in the anatomy lab final. And was the appeal process followed correctly. Those are the points she should have focused upon. I have no idea how far she would have gotten with any, since we don't have enough data to assess.
The remainder of her arguments do not appear based on any evidence I can see / she has offered. They are clouding the issue, and honestly make her less believable.
She blames everyone/thing else except herself for her failures. Her medical issues, father's illness, adjustment to medical school, unfair grading, and vague retaliation. No where does she take any responsibility for this -- and certainly some, if not most, is her responsibility.
As I've told multiple students and residents, how you deal with conflict is often more important than the actual issue causing the conflict itself. reading her description of all of this, I honestly start to get frustrated. I can imagine those who worked with her felt similar. Even if some of her points have merit, the way she is delivering all this is going to drive people crazy. Perhaps it was all different in the moment, but I doubt it based upon the emails she has posted. She alienated the faculty who were there to support her, and then wonders why no one is supporting her. Anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear is labeled as biased against her. She didn't do well in medical school for likely many reasons. With a repeat year, she probably would have had a decent shot of success. She created enough turmoil and created an unhealthy environment for everyone. Her communication skills and approach to the problem are what ended her career. And she can't see that -- which is a huge part of the problem.
OK, I've now wasted way too much time on this. Back to ERAS apps.