delusional wrote:I don't think this report is necessarily as damning as it might appear.
1. First of all, it is just as bad to doctor the employment statistics the way they do, as it is to change LSAT and GPA. Employment statistics are the result of how well a school related function is performed; LSAT and GPA are arguably a measure of nothing more than prestige.
2. It seems like there ought to be a little more skepticism of a result that conveniently allows the school to put everything on the guy who was fired. But this is the second admissions scandal since he got there, and his lack of involvement in the other one seems confirmed. (Or at least it did at the time... See previous sentence). Maybe there is a systemic reason why people keep getting accused of stuff there.
3. The doctoring seems to have been both oddly random and oddly specific. Maybe there were some loose practices and convenient mistakes, but that doesn't mean that it was one guy, and it doesn't mean that it was calculated and deliberate.
4. What would be the rationale for not doing it in the years he didn't?
5. The inferences that everyone is drawing about how he talked to applicants and friends differently don't mean much to me. Not only is the comment about the "bastards who have high GPAs" fully compatible with his wholesome earnest comments about giving Illinois students the best shot; but now we're criticizing him for acknowledging that he'd rather have a substantive 3.5 from a good school than a useless 3.9 from a bad one? Isn't that what everyone wants admissions to be like?
Read the report again. Changing only 2 LSAT scores to reverse the ratio of 95:93 so the median LSAT could be 166 is pretty damning. The changes weren't consistently done because there wasn't need some years. They met the goals set, so why fudge the numbers.