One Big Thing that Dallas Is Missing (Arlington, Howe: closing, statistics)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by ROLROC

yes, produce. so you're implying the sudents at such universities gain and learn nothing by attending.

I question the effectiveness of the university staff and faculty, and their relative contribution to the repute of the school.

The success of the graduates does not imply the value of the school's teaching, since the schools have been able to cherry-pick the students they want. And I know of no scientific way to separate the value added by the school and the value added by the student.

The difference between Rice and UT Arlington is that Rice can afford to work with just a small, carefully chosen student body. UT Arlington is a public facility that must accept a wider demographic, with almost 25,000 students. Statistically, it is highly likely that the top 2,900 students at UT Arlington are the equal of the 2,900 students at Rice.

Thus, the greater repute of Rice versus UT Arlington is a statistical illusion.

[beltline]

Would you also say the top 100 students at UT-Arlington are the equal of the top 100 students at Harvard?

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by beltline

Would you also say the top 100 students at UT-Arlington are the equal of the top 100 students at Harvard?

Possibly close.

The top 100 students at UT Arlington are .25% of the college-bound population that chooses UT Arlington. But UT Arlington comprises perhaps 10% of the Metro DFW population attending a university.

So the top 100 students at UT arlington comprise the top .025% of the DFW college population.

When you're dealing with percentages that small, the differences among individuals become statistically insignificant. The difference between an individual from the top .025% of the population versus one that is from the top .015%, or the top .005% even, is undiscernable. Random variation is much more important at that minute level.

So how do I figure this out? When I took one standardized test at UNT, some years ago, my score was the second-highest in the history of the school.

On an allied subject, what is the difference between a DFW student who is selected by Harvard and attends, versus one who is selected by Harvard, but goes to UT Arlington. The one study I know of that tried to measure this concluded there was no statistical significance in their life outcomes as regards earning power.

[beltline]

Originally Posted by aceplace

So how do I figure this out? When I took one standardized test at UNT, some years ago, my score was the second-highest in the history of the school.

Ah, congratulations.

Originally Posted by aceplace

On an allied subject, what is the difference between a DFW student who is selected by Harvard and attends, versus one who is selected by Harvard, but goes to UT Arlington. The one study I know of that tried to measure this concluded there was no statistical significance in their life outcomes as regards earning power.

I suppose I would then look at the level of student bases the schools typically draw from. UT Arlington, I think it would be fair to say, draws from a more regional base (DFW, for example) than Harvard, which draws from a more national base. It would then be a question of comparing the education level from the top students of different populations-- DFW's top versus other cities.

I do understand your point on statistical insignificance at such a small population. I do think the top 100 students at UTA and the top 100 students at Rice would have more in common than the top 2000 at each would.

There shouldn't be much of a difference between the student from DFW who goes to Harvard and the DFW student who, though accepted by Harvard, chooses to stay home at attend UTA-- both students, it could be assumed, generally fit one particular mode (as both were selected by Harvard), and assuming their drive for education and success stays the same, the particular school of their choice shouldn't have a terribly noticeable effect on the rest of their lives. This likely does not take into account where in America the graduate chooses to find employment and live, alumni connections, regional reputation of a school, etc.

[unexpected]

you like having fun with numbers.

You can conclude this only if you make the assumption that the top 100 kids at UTA would have gotten into Harvard.

You keep saying that you know of know scientific study that accounts for all the variables- which you're right, there is none. But instead of acting like a scientist, and saying "the issue is ambiguous", you've stuck solely to your position that the value of a higher education is useless, which I think is odd given that prevailing wisdom suggests otherwise.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by beltline

Ah, congratulations.

I just wish that my grades had been commensurate. I'm a genius at figuring out how to beat the test.

I suppose I would then look at the level of student bases the schools typically draw from. UT Arlington, I think it would be fair to say, draws from a more regional base (DFW, for example) than Harvard, which draws from a more national base. It would then be a question of comparing the education level from the top students of different populations-- DFW's top versus other cities.

I considered that in my previous answer. DFW contains 5% of the US population, and the educational demographics may not be comparable to some other cities. With a much larger sample size than 100, it's likely that Harvard would beat Arlington, but with such a small size, randomity, measurement error, systematic errors, various forms of bias, etc, would overwhelm whatever statistical signal underlied the noise.

I do understand your point on statistical insignificance at such a small population. I do think the top 100 students at UTA and the top 100 students at Rice would have more in common than the top 2000 at each would.

I'd disagree. With a larger sample size, the individual quirks that confuse issues of capability would cancel out.

There shouldn't be much of a difference between the student from DFW who goes to Harvard and the DFW student who, though accepted by Harvard, chooses to stay home at attend UTA-- both students, it could be assumed, generally fit one particular mode (as both were selected by Harvard), and assuming their drive for education and success stays the same, the particular school of their choice shouldn't have a terribly noticeable effect on the rest of their lives.

That's my contention. And the reason for that is that the contribution made by the teaching staff in each school contributes very little to the success of the students. Thus, Dallas does not need a top name university for anything other than bragging rights.

This likely does not take into account where in America the graduate chooses to find employment and live, alumni connections, regional reputation of a school, etc.

Absolutely. Most of America would be biased in favor of the name of Harvard or a Yale, versus an obscure name like UT Arlington.

My mother originally wanted me to go to SMU, but I went to U of D, and later, UNT, instead. I had an idea I was moving to California after graduation, and I suspected they'd believe over there that SMU was a bible college.

[ROLROC]

Originally Posted by unexpected

you like having fun with numbers.

You can conclude this only if you make the assumption that the top 100 kids at UTA would have gotten into Harvard.

You keep saying that you know of know scientific study that accounts for all the variables- which you're right, there is none. But instead of acting like a scientist, and saying "the issue is ambiguous", you've stuck solely to your position that the value of a higher education is useless, which I think is odd given that prevailing wisdom suggests otherwise.

responses now make a little more sense since he/she stated he attended UNT.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by unexpected

you like having fun with numbers.

I take my fun when it happens.

You can conclude this only if you make the assumption that the top 100 kids at UTA would have gotten into Harvard.

No, not at all. Harvard's addmission policies may have arbitrary criteria that would arbitrarily exclude equally capable students.

You keep saying that you know of know scientific study that accounts for all the variables- which you're right, there is none. But instead of acting like a scientist, and saying "the issue is ambiguous", you've stuck solely to your position that the value of a higher education is useless, which I think is odd given that prevailing wisdom suggests otherwise.

You don't understand my point. Which is a good way to lose an argument.

I do believe there is no necessary correlation between the reputation of a school and the quality of its teaching.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by ROLROC

responses now make a little more sense since he/she stated he attended UNT.

Maybe I was one of the top 100 students.

Ad Hominem attacks tell me my argument is whipping your butt.

[ROLROC]

Originally Posted by aceplace

I question the effectiveness of the university staff and faculty, and their relative contribution to the repute of the school.

The success of the graduates does not imply the value of the school's teaching, since the schools have been able to cherry-pick the students they want. And I know of no scientific way to separate the value added by the school and the value added by the student.

The difference between Rice and UT Arlington is that Rice can afford to work with just a small, carefully chosen student body. UT Arlington is a public facility that must accept a wider demographic, with almost 25,000 students. Statistically, it is highly likely that the top 2,900 students at UT Arlington are the equal of the 2,900 students at Rice.

Thus, the greater repute of Rice versus UT Arlington is a statistical illusion.

statistically? equal in what respects?

in addition, students are only part of the institution. elite schools such as rice are going to attract the more accomplished professors and faculty members.