In what ways did World War II end the problems of World War I Essay Example for Free

In what ways did World War II end the problems of World War I Essay In the days prior to World War Two, the First World War was referred to as â€Å"the War to end all Wars†. (Devine, 14) Despite this name, only twenty-odd years had passed before the nations of the world once again engaged in armed conflict. The treaty of Versailles and the conditions in Europe precipitated a second large-scale conflict in Europe. (Devine, 16) The conclusion of WWII ended the problems that derived from WWI by ending the Fascist dictatorships of Europe, ending European and Asian imperialism, and shifting military power out of Europe. The Treaty of Versailles created tremendous pressure on Germany, Austria-Hungary, and other nations who bore the blame for the conflict. (Morgan, 18) The economic depression in these nations that resulted from their attempts to pay reparations led to a political climate ripe for the rise of Fascism. (Morgan, 27) The people of nations such as Italy, Germany and Spain were willing to embrace this hyper-nationalist form of government, giving up their freedoms in exchange for the promise of better economic conditions and a return of their respective nations to international prominence. Morgan, 30) The rise of hyper-nationalism in Fascist Germany and Italy was one of the precipitating causes of the Second World War in Europe. Hitler’s Germany began to militarize and â€Å"reclaim† areas of Europe that Hitler declared to be part of the rightful German empire. (Morgan, 108) These regions included all of Austria, and part of the nation of Czechoslovakia, referred to by Hitler a s the Sudetenland (southland). When Germany invaded Poland to return the land to Germany, France and Britain declared war. The results of WWII ended the reign of fascism in Europe. ( Morgan, 117) The personalities around whom the fascist governments were built, Hitler in Germany, and Mussolini in Italy, were killed in the war effort, and their philosophies discredited when the atrocities they committed became public knowledge. (Morgan, 197) Of the Fascists of Europe, only Francisco Franco of Spain, which had remained neutral in the war, survived. (Morgan, 201) After WWII, Germany was divided into a Soviet-controlled Eastern half, and a Republican western half. Nationalist efforts were turned to reunification, rather than conquest. (Morgan, 203) The destruction of the German War machine was absolute, eliminating them as a future threat to stability in Europe. (Morgan, 205) Italy and Japan were similarly disarmed at the conclusion of WWII, making future threats to world stability from these powers unlikely in the extreme. (Morgan, 206) The end of WWII also marked the end of the naked Imperialism that characterized all the major European nations since WWI. Betts, 113) Britain, France, Germany, Japan and other nations granted independence, or protectorate status to their imperial holdings, making self-sovereignty the â€Å"new† goal of international foreign policy. (Betts, 127) Japan was forced to give up the Pacific Islands they had occupied, and withdraw their invasion of China. (Betts, 128) Germany similarly ceded their occupied territories and permitted free choice for the subsequent governments. Betts, 133) One of the world powers that emerged from WWII, the United States, embraced self-determination as the ideal for nations of the world, and began to fight against efforts to engage in imperialist activities on the parts of other nations. (Betts, 144) The conclusion of WWII marked a shift in the dynamic of world conflict. (Levering, 18) During WWI and WWII, dominance on the seas determined a large part of military control. After WWII, nations who had access to weapons of mass destruction became the powers of the World. Levering, 22) For the first time in modern history, the central conflict of the world was not between Britain and Germany or France, but between the United States and the Soviet Union. European powers became pawns in a worldwide power struggle between opposing ideologies. (Levering, 27) The United States used war reconstruction money as a lure to the nations of Europe to shun Communism in favor of republican government. (Levering, 34) After WWII, armed conflict was limited to third-party wars w here one side or the other effectively acted as a proxy for one of the Superpowers. Levering, 46) This was managed to avoid direct conflict between the Superpowers, which could have led to destruction of the entire world through nuclear annihilation. (Levering, 55) As a result, dozens of minor conflicts and a handful of major wars were fought after WWII by indigenous people with military and economic support from the USSR and the United States. (Levering, 58) This scenario played out in countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Afghanistan, and many others. (Levering, 75) It is clear that the effects of WWII resolved many of the issues that resulted from WWI. WWII ended European Fascism, eliminated European and Asian imperialism, and permanently shifted the balance of World Power away from Europe. The Treaty of Versailles produced conditions in Europe that made Fascism an attractive and popular option, which played a great role in precipitating WWII. As a result of the unresolved issues of WWI, WWII became the latest â€Å"war to end all wars†. It is hoped by the nations of the world that conflict on the scale of WWII never be repeated in the history of mankind.

Defying the Disney Image: The Testimony of Walt Disney Essay -- House

Walt Disney was born in 1890 to a woman named Seà ±ora Isabelle Zamora. His father, Elias, met Isabelle in California of that same year and the two carried on an affair that ended with the birth of Walt. Later, Elias brought the two back to Chicago, Illinois where Isabelle became a housekeeper for the Disney family. Walt was assimilated into the Disney household and treated as the biological son of Elias and Flora Disney. Isabelle was with the family for years, being passed on from the Elias and Flora household to the Walt and Lillian family years later (Eliot 152-157). This account of Walt Disney’s birth poses many questions about myths, legends, and rumours that encircled the life of the â€Å"man behind the mouse†. Biographies and documentaries attempt to give accurate chronicles of his life and delve into the mind of this genius. Even people who make a career of studying the man’s life can only make theories about his actions from oral descrip tions given by those who knew Disney personally. However, On Friday, October 24, 1947, Walt Disney testified in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and left his legacy on record for the entire world. While the testimony was documented and cannot be questioned, Disney’s motives for testifying, impact it had on his animated features, and how the ordeal affected his image are issues that are still scrutinised and debated. The strike of 1941 at the Disney Studios was one of the prime purposes for Disney’s testimony in front of HUAC years later. The problem is that historians cannot agree on the exact specifics of the strike. Leonard Mosley and Marc Eliot are two biographers who have both written versions of Disney’s life. The two biographies a... ... the animated feature film and brought entertainment to family audiences during the Great Depression and WWII, a dark time when American morale was low. This created an image of Disney that could never be ruined and to this day he still remains one of the most highly respected men in Hollywood. It is not common knowledge that Disney even played a part in the HUAC hearings, as it has been long forgotten in the chaos of honours he has achieved. Leonard Mosley, an acclaimed historian, even left his cowardly testimony out of the biography. However, Disney’s testimony is documented and will always be available to critics searching for the truth about the man Disney really was. Works Cited Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince. Great Britain: Andre Deutsch Limited, 1994. Mosley, Leonard. Disney’s World. Lanham, MD: Scarborough Press, 1985.

Presidential and Parliamentary Systems of Government Essay

Introduction and Main Distinguishing Features of Both Systems: A presidential system of government is one in which there is a head of government, i.e. the executive branch, who is separate from the legislature and is not accountable to it. Generally, the legislature does not hold power to dismiss the executive. This system can be traced back to the monarchal system in the medieval ages which countries such as France, England and Scotland followed where the Crown held all executive powers and not the parliament. When the office of the President of the United States was created, this system of separate powers of the executive and legislature was replicated in the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, a parliamentary system is different from the above because its executive branch of government needs the direct or indirect backing of the parliament to stay in power, which is generally expressed through a vote of confidence. However, the mechanism of checks and balances is different from one found in a presidential republic because there is no distinct separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. In parliamentary systems, the head of government and the head of state are distinct entities, where the former is the prime minister and the latter is an elected president or a hereditary monarch. The U.K. follows a parliamentary form of government, where the prime minister and the cabinet govern using their executive power on a daily basis, but actual authority is held with the head of state.[1] In distinguishing between presidential and parliamentary systems, three points must be considered. First, in a presidential system the head of government (the president) is elected for a fixed term and will serve this unless there is the ‘unusual and exceptional process of impeachment’, whereas in a parliamentary system the head of government (prime minister or equivalent) is dependent on the confidence of the legislature and thus can be removed (along with the whole government) by a motion of no-confidence. Second, in a presidential system the head of government (the president) is popularly elected, if not literally directly by the voters then by an electoral college popularly elected expressly for this purpose, whereas in a parliamentary system the head of government (prime minister or equivalent) is ‘selected’ by the legislature. Third, in a presidential system there is effectively a â€Å"one-person† non-collegial executive, whereas in a parliamentary system the executive (i.e., the cabinet) is collective or collegial.[2] For his part, Sartori like Lijphart, makes three basic points in that ‘a political system is presidential if, and only if, the head of state (president) i) results from popular election, ii) during his or her pre-established tenure cannot be discharged by a parliamentary vote, and iii) heads or otherwise directs the governments that he or she appoints’. There are two distinctions between Lijphart and Sartori worth noting here. First of all, Lijphart refers to the president as the head of government whereas Sartori refers to him or her as the head of state. Second and related, Sartori conceives of the government as being broader than the individual president. As such, Sartori rejects as too narrow the notion ‘that the head of state must also be the head of government’ in favor of a looser notion that authority flows from the president down – perhaps via a separate head of government.[3] Mainwaring attributes two distinguishing features to a presidential democracy. First, the head of government is elected independently of the legislature in the sense that legislative elections and post-election negotiations do not determine executive power. In countries where the chief executive is selected by the legislature, not as a second alternative when the popular vote does not produce a clear winner but as the fundamental process, the system is either parliamentary (the vast majority of cases) or a hybrid (as in Switzerland). Post-election negotiations that determine which parties will govern and which will head the government are crucial in many parliamentary regimes, but they are not part of the selection process of chief executives in presidential systems. The chief executive in a presidential democracy is usually elected by popular vote, although some countries, notably the United States, have an electoral college rather than direct popular elections. Even so, in the United States, the popular vote has a virtually binding effect on Electoral College votes. In other presidential systems, including those in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile (before 1973), the congress votes for a president if there is no absolute majority in the popular vote. Yet the popular vote is the first criterion, and in Argentina and Chile, tradition has dictated that congress will select the candidate with the most popular votes. Note that it must be the head of government-not simply the president-who is elected by popular vote or an electoral college. In Austria, Iceland, and Ireland, the president is elected by direct popular vote but has only minor powers and is therefore not the head of government.[4] The second distinguishing feature of presidential democracies is that the president is elected for a fixed period of time. Most presidential democracies allow for impeachment, but this practice is rare and does not substantially affect the definition because of its extraordinary character. The president cannot be forced to resign because of a no-confidence vote by the legislature, and consequently, the president is not formally accountable to congress. In a parliamentary system, in contrast, the head of government is elected by the legislature and subsequently depends on the ongoing confidence of the legislature to remain in office; thus the time period is not fixed.[5] Implications for Policy Making and Democracy: Whether a regime is parliamentary or presidential has a major impact on significant aspects of political life: how executive power is formed, relationships between the legislative and the executive branches, relationships between the executive and the political parties, the nature of the political parties, what happens when the executive loses support, and arguably even prospects for stable democracy and patterns of domination. The proponents of presidential claim that presidential systems claim that such systems ensure that the president’s power is a legitimate one because the president if, in most cases, elected directly by the people. The United States follows a different system in which the president is elected by an electoral college but is still considered to be popularly elected. Parliamentary executives can not claim to be elected via a direct vote of the people. Separation of powers is another benefit which the presidential system provides because it established the executive branch and the legislative as two distinct structures which allows each body to supervise and oversee the other and prevents abuse of the system. In a parliamentary system, the executive is not separate from the legislature, reducing the chances of criticism or scrutiny, unless a formal condemnation in the form of a vote of no confidence takes place. Hence, in a parliamentary system, a prime minister’s unethical deeds or instances of misconduct might never be discovered as Woodrow Wyatt (former British Member of Parliament) said while writing about the famous Watergate scandals during the presidency of Richard Nixon, â€Å"don’t think a Watergate couldn’t happen here, you just wouldn’t hear about it.†[6] In a parliamentary system, even though the option of a vote of no confidence is available, it is an option resorted to only in extreme cases. It is considered extremely difficult to influence or stop a prime minister or cabinet who has already decided to pass legislation or implement measures. Voting against important legislation is tantamount to a vote of no confidence, as a consequence of which the government is changed after holding of elections. This is a very tedious process because of which it is a rare occurrence in some parliamentary countries. Britain for example has only rarely undergone such a situation. Therefore, it is often believed that in a parliamentary system, because of the lack of separation of powers, the Parliament can not actually exercise any real control over the executive. However, there can be a downside to separation of powers. Presidential systems can lead to a situations where the President and Congress both evade blame by passing it to the other. In the words of former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon as he described the United States, â€Å"The president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington.†[7] Woodrow Wilson agreed in his thesis, Congressional Government in the United States, as he said, â€Å"†¦how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? . . . Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. . . . It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The `literary theory’ of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constitution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves . . . [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.†[8] Separation of Powers has mixed implications. It can lead to gridlock, i.e. when it becomes next to impossible to pass items on the party’s agenda because the legislature is almost equally divided, usually an occurrence in the U.S. when the Senate and House of Representatives are dominated by opposing parties. However, the upside to gridlock is that it often prevents radical policy changes. Another problem with the presidential system is that while it is inherently stable because the president is elected for a fixed term, this also compounds the issue of the presidency being a zero-sum game, where winner takes all. As Linz (1990, 56) states, â€Å"The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president’s fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate†¦losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.† Parliamentary elections can also lead to one party winning an absolute majority, in most scenarios a number of parties gain representation through these elections. Power is often shared and coalitions are formed, as a consequence of which the position holders give due weight to the needs and interests of smaller parties. In turn, these parties expect a certain share in power and as is obvious, are stakeholders in the overall system, instead of non-entities. Now if, as is the case in presidential systems, one sole person believes that he has independent authority and a popular mandate, he might start to develop a tendency towards authoritarianism. When he develops such notions about his standing and role, he will not react appropriately to the inevitable opposition to his policies, finding it annoying and unsettling, as would a prime minister who considers himself a mere representative of a temporary governing coalition and not the sole voice of the nation. Hence the examples of Venezuela and Colombia, where when democracy was reestablished in times of great political instability, and when the written constitutions warranted a presidential government, the leaders of chief political parties opted for consociational agreements whereby the rigid, winner-take-all consequences of presidential elections were â€Å"softened†.[9] While stability is often touted as one of the prime advantages of the presidential system, it is simply another word for rigidity. On the other hand, parliamentarism lends a certain element of flexibility to the political process. Advocates of presidentialism might reply that this rigidity is actually a plus because it prevents the uncertainty and instability so definitive of parliamentary politics. Under parliamentary government, after all, a number of entities, even rank-and-file legislators, can choose to adopt basic changes, cause realignments and shifts, and, most importantly, make or break prime ministers. But it must be remembered that while the need for authority and predictability might serve as justifications for presidentialism, there can be a myriad of unexpected developments- anything from the death of the incumbent to serious errors in judgment committed under the pressure of adverse political circumstances – that often lead to the presidential rule being less predictable and often weaker than that of a prime minister. The latter can always make efforts to bolster up his legitimacy and authority, be it through a vote of confidence or the dissolution of parliament and the consequential new elections. Also, a prime minister can be changed without it necessarily leading to a major regime crisis.[10] Conclusion: The above analysis has largely favored a parliamentary system over a presidential one. However, one must remember that success regimes, regardless of the amount of thought and care gone into their design, are determined by the extent of support they manage to arrest from society at large, its major forces, groups and institution. Public consensus therefore is a basic need, which confers legitimacy to the authority of the regime, and this is achieved only by the power which is attained lawfully and in a democratic fashion. Regimes also depend to a large extent on the ability and aptitude of their leaders to govern, to arouse trust and to respect the boundaries of the power they hold. Every country has unique aspects that one must take into account-traditions of federalism, ethnic or cultural heterogeneity, and so on. Both systems have their pros and cons, even parliamentary systems can suffer grave crises. Hence, countries must consider their own individual past, present and future, in order to determine which system has the greater probability of success. References Hardin, Charles. 1989. A Challenge to Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 22(3): 595-600. Lijphart, Arend, ed. 1992. Introduction in A. Lijphart (ed.), Parliamentary versus presidential government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Linz, Juan. 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy (Winter): 51-69. Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew. 1997. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. Comparative Politics 29(4): 449-471. Mainwaring, Scott. 1990. Presidentialism in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 25(1):157-179. Sartori, Giovanni. 1994. Neither presidentialism nor parliamentarism, in J.J. Linz & A. Valenzuela (eds.), The failure of presidential democracy, vol. 1: Comparative perspectives. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Thomas, Jo. Oct. 9 1988. The fate of two nations. The New York Times. Wilson, Woodrow. 1886. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. The New Englander 45(192). [1] Mainwaring, Scott and Shugart, Matthew. 1997. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. Comparative Politics 29(4): 449-471. [2] Lijphart, Arend, ed. 1992. Introduction in A. Lijphart (ed.), Parliamentary versus presidential government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [3] Sartori, Giovanni. 1994. Neither presidentialism nor parliamentarism, in J.J. Linz & A. Valenzuela (eds.), The failure of presidential democracy, vol. 1: Comparative perspectives. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. [4] Mainwaring, Scott. 1990. Presidentialism in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 25(1):157-179. [5] Linz, Juan. 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy (Winter): 51-69 [6] Thomas, Jo. Oct. 9 1988. The fate of two nations. The New York Times. [7] Hardin, Charles. 1989. A Challenge to Political Science. PS: Political Science and Politics 22(3): 595-600. [8] Wilson, Woodrow. 1886. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. The New Englander 45(192). [9] Linz, Juan. 1990. [10]   Linz, Juan. 1990.

Brown University Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA

Brown University is one of the most selective universities in the country with a mere 8 percent acceptance rate. As the data presented here makes clear, you will need grades and standardized test scores that are well above average to be admitted. Why Brown University? Location: Providence, Rhode IslandCampus Features: Founded in 1764, Browns historic campus occupies 143 acres on Providences College Hill. Boston is an easy train ride away, and the Rhode Island School of Art and Design adjoins the campus.Student/Faculty Ratio: 7:1Athletics: The Brown Bears compete at the NCAA Division I level.Highlights: A member of the prestigious Ivy League, Brown is one of the most selective universities in the country and it typically ranks highly among the top national universities. Acceptance Rate For students who entered Brown University in the 2018-19 academic year, the school had an acceptance rate of 7.7%. This means that for every 100 applicants, just 8 students were admitted while 92 received rejection letters. Brown is one of the countrys most selective universities. Admissions Statistics (2018-19) Number of Applicants 35,437 Percent Admitted 7.7% Percent Admitted Who Enrolled 60.8% SAT Scores and Requirements All students applying to Brown University must submit either SAT scores or ACT scores. For the class entering the university in the 2018-19 academic year, 63% submitted SAT scores. Brown University SAT Range (Admitted Students) Section 25th Percentile 75th Percentile ERW 700 760 Math 720 790 ERW=Evidence-Based Reading and Writing If you compare SAT scores for the Ivy League, youll see that Brown is typical: youre going to need a combined score around 1400 or higher to be competitive. In relation to national SAT score data, scores for the great majority of Brown students are in the top 7% of all test-takers. The middle 50% of students who enrolled at Brown scored between 700 and 760 on the evidence-based reading and writing part of the exam. This tells us that 25% of students scored a 700 or lower, and the upper 25% of students scored a 760 or higher. Math scores were slightly higher. The middle 50% ranged from 720 to 790, so 25% had a 720 or lower, and the top 25% scored either 790s or 800s. Requirements Brown University does not require the optional SAT essay, not does the school require SAT Subject Tests. That said, Brown does recommend students take two SAT Subject Tests, and the SAT essay may be used for advising purposes. Brown accepts College Boards Score Choice, and the university will super-score the SAT if you took the exam more than once. ACT Scores and Requirements Brown requires scores from either the SAT or ACT, but the university does not care which exam you choose. The ACT is a bit less popular than the SAT—49% of applicants submitted ACT scores. Brown ACT Range (Admitted Students) Section 25th Percentile 75th Percentile English 34 36 Math 30 35 Composite 32 35 Browns typical ACT scores are similar to the ACT scores for all the Ivy League schools. Youre going to need a score in the 30s to be competitive. National ACT score data reveals that Brown students typically score among the top 4% of all test-takers. For students who entered Brown University in the 2018-19 academic year, the middle 50% of students had composite scores between 32 and 35. This tells us that the top 25% of admitted applicants had scores of 35 or 36, and the bottom 25% had scores of 32 or lower. Requirements Brown university does not require the ACT with Writing, nor does the school require students who take the ACT to also submit SAT subject tests. If you took the ACT more than once, Brown will consider your highest scores for each section of the exam. However, the university will not calculate a composite super-score from those numbers. GPA Brown University does not publish GPA data for admitted students, but high grades in challenging courses will be the most important piece of a successful application. As the self-reported GPA data below reveals, nearly all admitted students had grades in the A range, and a 4.0 is not at all unusual. 96% of students who entered Brown in the 2018-19 academic year were ranked in the top 10% of their graduating high school class. Self-Reported GPA/SAT/ACT Graph Brown University GPA, SAT and ACT Data for Admission. Graph courtesy of Cappex.   The GPA, SAT score, and ACT score information was self-reported by actual Brown University applicants. Grades are unweighted. Find out how you compare to accepted students, see the real-time graph, and calculate your chances of getting in with a free Cappex account. Admissions Chances As a member of the Ivy League, Brown University is extremely selective. In the graph above, there is a lot of red (rejected students) hidden behind the blue and green (accepted students).. Even students with a 4.0 and extremely high standardized test scores get rejected from Brown. Its one of the reasons all students should consider Brown a reach school, even if your scores are on target for admission. At the same time, dont give up hope if you dont have a 4.0 and a 1600 on the SAT. Some students were accepted with test scores and grades below the norm. Brown University, like all members of the Ivy League, has holistic admissions, so the admissions officers are evaluating students based on more than numerical data. Meaningful extracurricular activities and strong application essays (both the Common Application essay and the many Brown supplemental essays) are extremely important pieces of the application equation. Also, keep in mind that high grades arent the only factor on the academic front. Brown wants to see that students have challenged themselves with AP, IB, and Honors courses. To be competitive for Ivy League admissions, you need to take the most challenging courses available to you. Brown also makes an effort to conduct alumni interviews with all applicants. If you have artistic talents, Brown University encourages you to show off your work. You can use SlideRoom (via the Common Application) or submit Vimeo, YouTube, or SoundCloud links with your application materials. Brown will look at up to 15 images of visual art and up to 15 minutes of recorded work. Students interested in Theatre Arts and Performance Studies do not need to audition or submit portfolios, but strong supplemental materials can obviously flesh out and strengthen an application. Why Does Brown Reject Strong Students? In one way or another, all successful applicants to Brown shine in multiple ways. They are leaders, artists, innovators, and exceptional students. The university works to enroll an interesting, talented, and diverse class. Unfortunately, many worthy applicants do not get in. The reasons can be many: a lack of perceived passion for ones chosen area of study, a lack of leadership experience, SAT or ACT scores that arent quite as high as similarly qualified candidates, an interview that fell flat, or something more in the applicants control such as application mistakes. On a certain level, however, there is quite a bit of serendipity in the process and some good applicants will strike the fancy of the admissions staff while others might fail to stand out from the crowd. Sources: Graph courtesy of Cappex; all other data from the Brown Common Data Set, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Brown University Office of Undergraduate Admissions.