@Canuckguy : The thing they mentioned about professional schools is what I postulate as well and it is kind of embarrassing if you ask me. Surprise, surprise, will value superficial success if it helps their rankings. Sounds like many elite undergraduate admission schemes now-a-days but much worse.
“getting Cs in these subjects probably means you didn’t learn anything substantial at a level you could understand and apply”
Again, this makes you question the grading standards and level of assessments in these so called difficult courses at some elite institutions. If this is true, then I am very familiar with how the instructors write exams any graded work. They pretty much put items on there that they expect B and C students to get (like basic understanding from notes and problem sets) and then a chunk on the assessments that only very top students will get that involve more critical analysis, extrapolation, and even creativity. This scheme is super common. And then they put the grades on a curve (because mainly only a chunk of the students will be able to crack the section with higher level thinking so averages may be low and the students who make the biggest dent in it get B+ and higher). More rigorous and better instructors would get the class to the point where a majority of questions could be written at a solidly high level such that a passing grade (B/C range) would not suggest the claim in quotes above (basically, just to pass, you have to acquire some very solid problem solving skills). However, many STEM instructors know that they are not effective at teaching in a way that goes beyond emphasizing content knowledge and thus you are left with the status quo of students who already have high enough ability of figuring out higher levels of thinking on their own not only being and upper ends of the course but also being the only ones who demonstrate substantial learning gains in the course. The others may as well have taken an easier instructor who did not assess the higher level cognitive skills.