American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a three-year exploratory case study of four two-year graduate-level bridge programs designed to increase the number of historically underrepresented groups of individuals earning PhDs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This article presents findings from one component of a three-year exploratory study of four two-year, intensive bridge programs. The study was designed to collect data on how the bridge programs were assessing intellectual capability and students' likelihood of success in STEM graduate study and whether the bridge programs were 1) actively seeking and drawing on an expanded pool of undergraduate talent, and 2) influencing general graduate program admissions through practices and advocacy for valuing nontraditional measures as predictors of graduate school success. Key findings suggest that the four bridge programs offered three different types of bridging pathways or "tracks" into STEM doctorate programs, each of which allowed for varying degrees of nontraditional recruitment and admissions practices considerations. While the four programs shared a commitment to broadening participation and providing a more diverse pool of students robust pathways to a PhD, the ways in which the bridge programs had to gain buy-in, coordinate, and communicate bridge student selection with general master's and PhD graduate program admissions may have reinforced, rather than challenged, deficit narratives about historically underrepresented students' abilities outside of these special programs.