underlying conclusions), provided fodder to those trying to discredit, or at least raise doubts about, the influential report. A side-by-side comparison of the two documents published by the Post shows that some of the changes are inconsequential -- an admissions official at one college telling the undercover would-be applicant that she "could" (rather than "should," in the original) "take out the maximum amount of federal loans, even if she did not need the money." But others seem more serious. Where a finding in the original document said that an admissions representative had directly declined to disclose the institution's graduation rate when asked by the investigator (and that the college's website did not provide the rate), the corrected document drops the accusation about the official refusing to answer and simply states: "The college's Web site did not provide the graduation rate." And perhaps most damagingly, where the original asserted that an admissions official had told the undercover applicant that the applicant would have finished the seven-month academic program before the government would be able to verify financial or other information about the applicant, the updated version acknowledged that the undercover agent himself had suggested that idea. "The representative acknowledged this was true." While commenters on Inside Higher Ed , bloggers and others debated the significance of the changes, the shift of gears may give for-profit college advocates the seed of doubt they need to challenge the substance of the findings -- and at the very least, it appeared to embolden them