<p>Re post 119
Validity of the Espenshade data: I think my point is fairly obvious in terms of the value of using data from 1983,1996,1997. That mifune cannot think of a reason that the changes over time noted might not affect the data in such a way as to make mifune’s conclusions void does not mean that such a reason does not exist. It is reasonable to consider that it might, which is all I am suggesting.
Super-scoring: I respectfully disagree. Although only one superscored set of data is used for admissions of a given applicant, the full information of all the sittings may be in the files of the admissions department, depending on what year student applied. Certainly for older data (such as the years of the Espenshade study), this is true. Do we know that Brown uses only the superscored numbers for the admissions statistics? We do not. They may, they may not. Do we have any information about how super-scoring actually affects applications decisions? We do not. We, as far as I know (the wise are welcome to point to any information to the contrary), know what actual effect superscoring has on admissions results.
ACT/SAT: You miss my point(admittedly I was a bit sloppy in stating it). There is no data available, that I could easily when shows how Brown treats the highest scorers on the ACT versus the highest scorers on the SAT. There seems to be a difference, as noted by bovertine in posting 116, but there is not sufficient data to come to any conclusions.</p>