Remember that story in the Los Angeles Dog Trainer that we discussed on Monday, titled Overall, Race No Factor for Low-Scoring UC Applicants? Mickey Kaus — a bit late to the party but welcome nevertheless — publishes his criticism of the story here.

Kaus notes the exact point made by Patterico Monday morning: the Dog Trainer saved the information on Berkeley and UCLA until after the jump. Patterico is happy to have Kaus’s high-publicity magnifying glass trained on this misleading story.

P.S.: Kaus also makes the argument first made by Brendan Smart: that comparing the rates of admission is misleading, because the numbers could be skewed somewhat by the overall number of minority applicants with high SAT scores.

I continue to think that this is not too big a deal. After all, Kaus’s numbers show that “65% of the students actually admitted to Berkeley and UCLA with low SATs are ‘underrepresented minorities.’” So, as it turns out, the differential in the rate of acceptance is about the same as the differential in the percentage of overall students accepted: about 2-to-1.

What I want to know is why the numbers cited by Kaus and the Dog Trainer seem to be so different from the numbers in this Oakland Tribune article, which found that 89-90% of the low-scoring students admitted to Berkeley in 2001-2002 were minorities.

UPDATE: Kaus has filed an update acknowledging the superior response time of this blog and BoiFromTroy on this story. (Two days: an eternity in the blogosphere!) He also makes a good point that, while obvious, needs to be said again and again: a central issue is “whether these low-SAT students actually do wind up succeeding at the university.” (Kaus wonders why the LAT doesn’t do this analysis, presumably knowing the answer: they are scared of what they’ll find.)