According to admissions, 80% of candidates are qualified -- and it's the rest of the application that gets them in.
The definition of "qualified" used by admissions offices is not the same as the one used by students.
I feel it is somewhat confusing to use the first definition of qualified, and think it would be better to discontinue it.
I disagree. If you are applying to a college, it doesn't seem like a far leap to me to assume that qualifications aren't just about your SAT scores -- there's a lot more that you fill out on the app. I expect applicants to at least attempt to learn what a college considers as qualification. I'm not sure what word substitution you think would help.
But when people say "Person A was more qualified than person B in my opinion but only person B was admitted," the response is often "Admissions says 80% of the students are "qualified."
Against the universalism of explanatory laws, Cartwright has argued that laws cannot be both universal and true; there exist only patchworks of laws and local cooperation. Like Dupré, Cartwright adopts a kind of scientific realism but denies that there is a universal order, whether represented by a theory of everything or a corresponding a priori metaphysical principle (Cartwright 1983). The empirical evidence, she argues, along the same lines as Wimsatt, suggests far more strongly the idea of a dappled world, best represented by a patchwork of laws, often in local cooperation (e.g., local identifications, causal interactions, joint actions and piecemeal corrections and correlations). Theories apply only where and to the extent that their interpretive models fit the phenomena studied (Cartwright 1999). But this is not their alleged universal factual scope. They only hold in special conditions like ceteris paribus.
I must confess my lack of understanding at whatever point Chris is trying to make with the Stanford school regarding universal laws.