<p>Oh my. Let me try to elucidate a bit. </p>
<p>Post#113 Lamenting the fact that Asians at U of Florida might need an SAT of 1900 when “some kid” (presumably non-Asian) was admitted with an SAT of 1500. Poster went on to say, “I for one don’t care what color or race my heart surgeon is. We should be accepting the most qualified persons.”</p>
<p>To which I replied in post 114, “Agreed, but what does it mean to be the most qualified? I don’t really care what my heart surgeon scored on his SATs.” My point being that competence as a surgeon, in my opinion, bore little correlation to standardized test performance. A little extrapolation on that point might lead the astute reader to realize that I was also inferring standardized test performance was not the ultimate measure of a potential Harvard applicant, either.</p>
<p>I found your post 116 a little confusing. "Would you sacrifice acumen as a surgeon (diagnosis, performing the surgery) for bedside manner? Most people wouldn’t. " Perhaps I misread your intent, but seems like you are equating diagnostic and surgical skill with standardized test performance. Therein lies the logical spitting and trampling to which Mr. Eisenhower alluded, I believe.</p>