<p>In addition to the age of the data used by Espenshade, the way he defines the advantages numerically is questionable. But, even it were beyond criticism, why would the conclusions raise many eyebrows? </p>
<p>Consider that athletes and legacies often apply in the early rounds, how do their numbers compare to the overall REA or RD pool? How large is the REA bonus at Harvard? </p>
<p>Consider that legacies bring an intimate knowledge of the school and evident intent to attend, why is it surprising they are given benefits by adcoms? Again and again, the soft ingredients are just as important than SAT scores! The strict focus on scores by Espenshade is exactly why his findings are misleading. </p>
<p>And most importantly, if his findings were true and verifiable, they would fall TREMENDOUSLY short of providing an indictment of wrongdoing, and especially not one of discrimination. </p>
<p>A possible analogy would be to compile the IQ scores of employees and define their odds of hiring without consider experience and personal qualities. </p>