Please tell me how, in an absence of previous history of criminal behavior (which to my knowledge, this girl didn't have), schools can effectively identify potential future criminal behavior?
What lesson should admissions offices be learning?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, easy there, kiddo. No one said to go all Minority Report here. Who said to identify future criminal behavior? lol. I really am shocked that you're misconstruing a person who is caught with how many medical students remain at-large. She was caught because she isn't the brightest of the bunch. Seriously, if you steal an iPad, you sell it, you don't hold on to it. My interest here is not her criminal behavior, but her intentions overall, which are harder to identify, but not impossible. Have you looked at her LinkedIn profile vs her facebook? I mean, admissions admits to looking at both, but they didn't see anything shallow, or, at the very least, a disconnect between her professional and personal faces online?
My point is, admissions needs to change, and not a "oh, a little snippet here, a little biddle dazzle there;" I mean really question the entire process that has been around for centuries barely changed. Going digital doesn't count. I think, the very first lesson is, they need to accept the possibility that just because a process is old and persistent, doesn't make it perfect and "cannot be improved upon." Or, at the very least, forget the notion that, "Well, it's not perfect, but nothing is, so we should just not do anything."
It's a treasure-trove of content, frankly, so I need to ask you, what do I have your permission to criticize? Can we use non-generalizations? Or do we have to conform to old habits that lead to her admission to a rather awesome school? Again, if they are using generalizations, the only valid thing according to you, I would say "stop relying exclusively on generalizations." Do you agree?
