<p>My argument is Princeton does care about what choice they are to a student - but only after that they decide that they want that student or type of student. For instance, if they’re looking for a violinist and you’re a cellist, it’s not going to matter if you apply SCEA even if you have “borderline” statistics. Now, if you have two violinists and one applies SCEA and one applies RD, then the SCEA one might get in over the other one. That’s what I mean by inherent characteristic. These characteristics are highly variable from year to year. Does SCEA give an slight advantage? Yes. Does it give an advantage that is predictable from applicant to applicant as you allege? I don’t think so. </p>
<p>I think the most likely explanation is you have no idea what my sample looks like. If you have visited Princeton/been here, you would see and I would accept that perhaps there’s something wrong with my sample. But you keep on making assumptions about my observations and my sample. We’re not going to reach a conclusion here. </p>
<p>Are we going to now argue about the petty things like how I use my words? Fine. Here we go: Proximity does not imply connection.
Not only do I separate those two things by a sentence, but I use “Again” to signify that I have moved on and am re-iterating something else. I have also made no claims about observing a 2% to 19% difference, or lack thereof, in any post I have made. My only claims have been in relation to the Avery study. Further, the only data you provided that I have claimed is “outdated” is the data provided in the Avery study. I would not have made a claim that the new data (2% versus 19%) was outdated without devoting a paragraph or so to substantiation. For any of the above reasons, I could not have been referring to the latter statistics, if you had been thinking with your noggin. </p>
<p>The 2011 study looks at the same issues, but with different schools and with a slightly different perspective (ED vs. EA). If you want to validate the Avery study by claiming the sources that cite it, those sources should at least be applicable to Princeton. If they are not applicable to Princeton, then again, I maintain my claim: the data used by Avery et al. was outdated and I question its validity. Citing the two studies that cite the Avery one does not make your case any better in this regard. </p>
<p>As I said, we have reached an impasse. I see no point in discussing this with you further, as we have been reduced to discussing the petty issues. Have a good day.</p>