<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>Given how you have misunderstood my post #500, I’ll take some responsibility for not wording it clearly enough. However, I believe that had you read it more calmly and carefully, you would have responded differently or not at all.</p>
<p>I wrote that “…Espenshade and Chung found that being Asian was the equivalent of a 220 point SAT deduction.” That is, the deduction doesn’t actually happen. It’s as if it happens, hence equivalent. My statement would have been defamatory if I had written, “…Espenshade and Chung found that being Asian caused a 220 point SAT deduction.” However, that is neither what they found nor what happens in practice. As you can plainly see, I did not use such wording.</p>
<p>Later on, I wrote “…the practice of certain private schools actually artificially reducing the scores of certain applicants as acceptable.” Notice how I said “certain private schools.” I did not mention Princeton, and for that matter, I did not mention any university or school by name in my post #500. I concede that I should have been more specific. cheers has told me that certain K-12 private Catholic schools engage in this practice, and after she described it, she did not disapprove of its “deliberate fraud.” I’m glad that you disapprove.</p>
<p>I understand that you and most other supporters of race-based admissions weren’t too excited about Dr. Espenshade and Professor Chung’s research. I remind you that after publishing their papers on this issue, both publicly reaffirmed their commitment to affirmative action. (Political correctness?) Please do not impugn their characters by suggesting that they are not true researchers. I never stated that any student “‘has’ to have a certain score to be accepted to any U in this country,” and I have never disputed what you wrote. I thus fail to see why you felt the need to say that.</p>
<p>I have not “confuse[d] the existence of high scores as a trend among high percentages of Asian students, with a REQUIREMENT that any institution has toward <em>Asian</em> applicants.” I see it as more of a case in self-selection.</p>
<p>I remind you that I’m not for an admissions system that is based purely on statistics. That is a gross caricature that supporters of race-based admissions bring out when their opponents propose race-neutral admissions.</p>
<p>I contest your statement that “The trend toward higher scores is the result of expectations among Asian families…” The causality doesn’t make sense. You say that the expectations among Asian families cause the trend toward higher scores in this group. Yet, many non-Asian families have similar expectations regarding high scores. So, under your logic, why don't all groups exhibit "Asian-like" scores?</p>
<p>I hope you’re not suggesting that these Asian applicants are absolutely weaker in these “other factors” compared to their peers. In spite of Berkeley and LA’s efforts to make their admissions more “holistic” while still race-neutral, Asians still make up the plurality on both campuses. Maybe they’re not quite so bad in the “other factors” department.</p>
<p>Luckily, in academics, statements like your penultimate one are of little worth. An empirical paper must be refuted with modeling and statistics, not hubris. If you’re not able to find a paper besides Professor Kidder’s, I suggest you minimize your dislike of Espenshade and Chung’s findings. A paper that uses law school data to refute a paper based on undergraduate data is inadequate as a response.</p>
<p>There’s no letter ‘c’ in the Greek alphabet. Since there is a k, Perikles is more accurate.</p>