Statistics do not support conclusions
There are a number of issues with Wednesday’s article about admissions (“Admitted students’ scores show disparity,” News, May 2).
The primary one is that the statistics, as presented in the article, do not support former UC Regent Ward Connerly’s conclusions that black, Chicano and Latino students are held to a lower standard than are white, Asian and Pacific students.
Without knowing the standard deviation of any of the presented averages, it’s impossible to say with any confidence the averages are different.
Furthermore, assuming there is a real difference in GPA and test scores, the graph titled “Percent Of Admitted Class By API” lends itself to the interpretation that white, Asian and Pacific students are more likely to benefit from grade inflation than black, Chicano or Latino students.
Additionally, there is the fact that white, Asian and Pacific students tend to come from higher-rated schools, and many times more affluent neighborhoods, than their black, Chicano and Latino counterparts.
This fact implies that they have more resources available that can help them score well on standardized tests such as the SAT, and that they have the financial means to take standardized tests multiple times.
Overall, it seems as though Connerly is using poor statistics to support his preconceived notion that white, Asian and Pacific students are held to a higher standard than black, Chicano and Latino students.
He does this rather than looking at the available data and trying to understand what it all means.
Erik Menke
Post-doctoral researcher,
Department of materials science
L.O.G.I.C. not a “conservative” club
In Rashmi Joshi’s recent column (“Groups’ names can be misleading” May 1), she said that the acronym “L.O.G.I.C.” incorrectly portrays the purpose of the club, claiming that we are actually “a pretty conservative and controversial political organization on campus”.
The accusation that we are conservative is a commonly held misconception.
Just look at our position on such topics as abortion, immigration and religion, among others. Where we superficially agree with conservatives, our underlying reasoning shows that we certainly do not embrace conservative “values.”
But most importantly, we are much more than just a “controversial political organization.”
Admittedly, L.O.G.I.C.’s activities include putting on controversial events.
Politics is a branch of philosophy, and naturally can have logic applied to it. There’s a good reason we put on controversial events: Why bother putting on events about issues everybody already agrees with ““ or worse, few care about?
Without a doubt, “L.O.G.I.C.” very accurately portrays our fundamental purpose and the range of activities in which we engage.
Arthur Lechtholz-Zey
UCLA law student
Chief executive officer, L.O.G.I.C.