<p>Haha, toomuchpressure, so true. xD</p>
<p>death to paul-</p>
<p>in 2002, penn accepted 21% of its undergrad applicants* while princeton accepted 11%**. the wine article first stated 21% for penn, which checks out, but listed princeton as accepting 11.9%. so, the numbers aren’t completely explained by your hypothesis because of the incongruence between the princeton rates.</p>
<p>it’s possible, but unlikely that they were real (and current) data. maybe somebody just made up that .9?</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> - Profile 2002 - Admission and Enrollment](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20030102025548/www.princeton.edu/pr/facts/profile/02/08.htm]Princeton”>Princeton - Profile 2002 - Admission and Enrollment) *</p>
<p>[Penn:</a> Undergraduate Admissions: Incoming Student Profile](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20030608200246/www.admissionsug.upenn.edu/applying/profile.php]Penn:”>Penn: Undergraduate Admissions: Incoming Student Profile) **</p>
<p>bluewhitebulldog, a kid in my psych class emailed Margaret and she wrote to him unequivocally that 21% was definitely not this year’s number, which had not yet been released.</p>
<p>In other words, you’re full of ****.</p>
<p>who is margaret</p>
<p>The writer of the article (assuming that maggie is short for Margaret).</p>
<p>Regardless, it’s not true, and bluewhitebulldog is lying.</p>
<p>^ muerteapablo</p>
<p>What are you talking about? So she broke journalistic ethics, the most sacred one of all and LIED in her article? Sure…</p>
<p>it’s not a complete lie if those are old, but accurate, admissions statistics</p>
<p>^ The writer specifically stated that as I quote “This year” and the article was published in 2009. That does not leave room for interpretation, unless she blatantly lied…</p>
<p>^^ thought it just said “Penn’s …” but was ambiguous to when?</p>
<p>if not, then ya</p>
<p>^^ It said “This year, Penn admitted…”</p>
<p>Yea, it said “This year” published in 2009. She’s lying if it isn’t true.</p>
<p>Also take a look at this:
[Preceptorials</a> | University of Pennsylvania](<a href=“http://www.preceptorials.org/semester.html]Preceptorials”>http://www.preceptorials.org/semester.html)</p>
<p>so the wine-tasting preceptorial is part of Upenn, which would mean that the admission percentages are for the actual general admissions of the schools for THIS year. WOW</p>
<p>Actually, Cali101, the published version of the article didn’t “lie” as you put it:
[Wine-tasting</a> preceptorial admits 2.3 percent of applicants - News](<a href=“http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2009/03/27/News/WineTasting.Preceptorial.Admits.2.3.Percent.Of.Applicants-3685100.shtml]Wine-tasting”>http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2009/03/27/News/WineTasting.Preceptorial.Admits.2.3.Percent.Of.Applicants-3685100.shtml)</p>
<p>It used the real numbers from last year. Only the article dated earlier, from the 26th, has the fake numbers.</p>
<p>And I assure you that they are fake.</p>
<p>Why did she change the numbers in the article?</p>
<p>well maybe they realized they lied and thats why they changed the story? idk</p>
<p>The question I have is what is the other article then?</p>
<p>The author was trying to highlight the differences in acceptance rates, so she cherry picked from disparate years to get a cascading effect in her prose: 21%, 12%… 2%. Bam. That’s a nice lede for a newspaper article.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it was also a lie, so the editors changed it.</p>
<p>^ I doubt that the editors were so incompetent that they did not notice such a HUGE mistake in the lead before publishing the first version. The lead is the most important part of any news article, and both the writer and the editor spends agonizing amounts of time on the lead. So I highly doubt that it would happen.</p>
<p>Whatever, there’s really no point in speculating (unlike what I was doing, which was relaying the paper’s official explanation).</p>
<p>We’ll wait until Tuesday and see the truth.</p>
<p>Isn’t speculating the whole point of CC? ;)</p>