<p>“The admission rate is lower at Wharton, thus it is more selective.”</p>
<p>Depends on your definition of selectivity. Once again, any inferences you make from “the admission rate is lower” only help obscure the issue. You don’t seem to get the epistemological issue.</p>
<p>The claim that "“The calibre of Wharton students is on par with HYP” can be made, as can be made any claim, but that doesn’t make it correct. I am contending it is meaningless. What are you contending? Are you contending it’s true? That’s impossible to verify. Are you contending it makes sense? That’s pretty subjective.</p>
<p>You say you’re not just looking at admissions rate. Yet, you also say that the characteristics are similar. So the students at Wharton are comparable to HYP because the admission rate is similar and other characteristics are similar. Yet, the characteristics of CAS students are also similar, except in the admissions rate. The only significantly distinguishing factor is indeed the admissions rate. If you say Wharton = HYP, yet CAS != HYP, you’re only relying on the admissions rate as the distinguishing criterion. How similar the other characteristics are is another issue in itself.</p>
<p>You said it yourself: “If the students at Curtis have similar statistics, then yes, we can assume they are on par”. Yes, you can <em>assume</em> it. Once again, you can assume <em>anything you want</em>. You don’t need to justify them. What I’m trying to make clear is, precisely, that these are nothing but ASSUMPTIONS.</p>
<p>The allegation that schools look at different profiles can be made. Nursing looks for different kind of students than Wharton. The fact that they can only apply to one school is not enough to defeat or substantiate the claim. If you don’t believe the claim, that’s fine, but my argument does not rest on that claim.</p>