Letters to the editor

Pitt has no reason to publish misleading SAT scores

Your editorial about SAT… Pitt has no reason to publish misleading SAT scores

Your editorial about SAT scores hit the issue squarely and accurately.

I have been teaching statistics in GSPIA for 35 years or so, and one of the first things we teach students is that an average (or mean) of a set of values is the total divided by the number. The case for reporting this average accurately is simply honesty: If you say something is an “average,” you should mean it. If you exclude some cases (sometimes for good reason) you should be clear that you are doing so, and you should call its average by its proper name: (e.g., “average of freshmen scores excluding students admitted on criteria excluding SAT scores”). Even if a published “fact sheet” discloses the true basis of the average, we have to be sure that this average is not misrepresented in other publications. For example, was U.S. News ‘ World Report made aware what the true average was, when they made their rankings? The difference between 1220 and 1200 could be quite a few ranks.

Possibly the more restricted average is more relevant for some users and purposes, but again, other users may have other uses. Since even the special-category admits sit in the same classes as other students, should not their SAT scores be included to describe average student quality?

If we are not trying to “make Pitt look better,” as is claimed, then I see no reason why we should not publish the honest average.

William Matlack

Professor, GSPIA

Professors for Peace and Justice debate misleading

The Pitt News reported yesterday (“Professors for Peace and Justice question, debate politics”), that a group of Pitt faculty kicked off their September 11 “debate” (which they later define as telling “stories that affirm the Palestinian people”) with what is rapidly becoming everybody’s favorite activist ice breaker – an attack on Israel so wildly erroneous that it makes UFO conventions look like Nobel Prize meetings.

The claim made by their first speaker Ken Boas was that “Osama made his grievances clear to the world: Stop oppressing and destroying the Palestinians.” From this statement, two things are clear. First off, this guy is apparently on a friendly, first-name basis with the monster responsible for the incineration of over 3,000 Americans. Second, this organization has no clue what the hell they’re talking about.

Let’s do a quick survey to see if anyone agrees with their assessment of bin Laden’s motives.

The analysts don’t. Dr. Maher Hathout, senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said bin Laden “knows the Palestinian issue is so dear, so all of a sudden he uses it” to rally Arab and Muslim nations through their hatred of Israel.

The international press doesn’t. Last December, several Egyptian newspapers attacked bin Laden for completely ignoring the Palestinians. Time magazine reported that bin Laden’s October 7 videotape was “the first time he had ever publicly raised the issue” of Palestine.

And not even the Palestinians agree. After seeing the videotape, the Palestinian Authority planning minister Nabil Shaath said that bin Laden “remembered Palestine two days ago.” Palestinian analyst Ghassan Khatib told bin Laden to “leave us alone.”

How many times and in how many ways does an organization have to be wrong before we stop listening to them? Some of the talks given at the meeting were no doubt well thought out, scholarly dissents against American policy given by distinguished faculty. Fair enough. At some point, unfortunately, it seems that they let their organization get hijacked by extremists who are bent on whipping up incitement rather than giving people the truth.

Omri Ceren

External Vice President, University of Pittsburgh Hillel

CAS Senior