Incorrect analysis
To the Editor:
I would like to clarify a few of the statistics cited in Jim Saksa's article, "Missing the Bigger Picture."
Based on his personal opinion, Mr. Saksa reported that the difference between men's and women's LSAT scores is statistically insignificant. But as most individuals know, the classification of results as statistically significant or insignificant is not based on opinion, but on particular statistical tests that take into account factors such as the variability of the data. Based on the results of these tests, the difference between men's and women's LSAT scores is indeed statistically significant.
Additionally, Mr. Saksa's article stated the percentage of women in the 2007 entering law school class was 46.9 percent. This, too, is incorrect. The total percentage of women in law school in 2007 was 46.9 percent, not the 2007 entering class. The percentage of women has decreased in each successive class for the past five years, making the current year lower than the overall mean.
While I do not know the exact percentage of women in the 2007 entering class, basic reasoning shows it has to be lower than 46.9 percent. Thus, the gap between the percentage of women who took the 2005-2006 LSAT and the percentage of women who enrolled in law school in 2007 exceeds the 2.18 percent reported by Mr. Saksa.
Colleen Honigsberg The author is a former editorial page editor of The Daily Bruin International student aid matters
To the Editor:
A wry political scientist once remarked that the loss of one American life was equivalent to the deaths of 100 Iraqis in terms of media coverage of the Iraq War. It seems that Mr. McMillan ("Increasing Access at Home," 1/31/08) feels the same way about foreigners and financial aid. We believe that thousands of international students who continue to struggle to pay for the privilege of a Penn education already face systemic discrimination by not having need-blind acceptance in the admissions process. What makes Americans so morally superior to any other nationality that Americans, and only Americans, deserve access to a Penn education because of a fortunate accident of birth?
What Penn and Mr. McMillan fail to recognize is that international student aid is the best way to expand Penn's quest for diversity of academic excellence.
The best and the brightest of the world's high school students aren't waiting eagerly by their mailboxes for Penn acceptance letters any more. Lucrative national scholarships (Penn only has need-based aid) and more generous institutions (Oxford, anyone?) prevent American universities from being competitive internationally.
This is not only Penn's problem. It is the problem of a Congress that has forgotten what made America great - the embrace of all talents and all newcomers wanting to make a better life in this country.
As international students, we enrich the quality of a Penn education by bringing a diversity of talents, experiences, and passions to this learning community.
We are of the same human family. Penn should either give us a fair go, or formally recognize that when it comes to their commitment to international diversity, they are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is.
Alexander Giannakakis and Zehua Li The authors are Undergraduate Chair and Graduate Chair of the International Student Advisory Board
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
