University of Missouri v. Horowitz:
a.    Council evaluated a medical student several times during her clinical rotation and after many negative reports, the council placed her on probation, and then after failing probation and continuing negatively, the council recommended she be expelled.
b.    She argued her dismissal violated due process; and claimed she lost her “liberty” to practice medicine.
c.    HELD: court said she had no “property” right.  She was granted the right to attend medical school and the state could take them away.  But she really argued her liberty rights to seek education and employment.
d.    Court distinguished the Goss case, which required a stringent process for disciplinary actions.  But in medical school, these matters of review, which are based on analysis and subjective evaluation, the court chooses to defer to the experts.
e.    The court requires only that the process makes the student aware of the possibility of suspension and then give the student a chance to alter her conduct.  The school did this.