βπ THE BAD IDEAS THREAD
-
@Rhywden said:
In which world is that meaningful?
The world in which you're trying to compare them as overall students, not in any particular field. They're all equally good at being students: pretty shitty.
And what good exactly does such a comparison?
-
Yes, I get it that they're "numbers". However, not all "numbers" are equal. If you actually studied that you should know that.
Sure. I know all about that.
Even if the mean is actually meaningless.
Except it isn't in this case. It means something different than what you'd like to see with respect to grades, apparently, but so what?
In which world is that meaningful?
In the world in which you want an aggregate statistic about their performance at school. Do you guys never do anything like that or something? Are people required to look at a transcript and come up with an aggregate themselves?
In reality it's the same as with the Free Energy jokers and their Quantum Mechanics magic - you're using methods without understanding what they mean and how they should be applied. And as a result, you're blind to the dangers posed by those misapplied methods.
You've really gone over the edge now.That's the problem with the mean: It's so easy to apply that it's used as a hammer - and anything that looks like numbers is treated as a nail.
I don't think anyone is unclear that GPA is a blunt instrument. That doesn't make it not useful, no matter how much intellectual masturbation you want to apply to whatever you do to aggregate grades.
-
See, here's what I don't get.
Everyone is always complaining and blabbering on how statistics are misused in some hot topic or other. Climatology comes to mind.
"Oh, here's how you used the methods wrong!" - "Your data is flawed, you should not use those numbers!" - "There's a bias in this methodology!"
And then we have a bunch of pseudo-scientific methods when it comes to determining the future of people - and no one bats an eye.
-
And then we have a bunch of pseudo-scientific methods when it comes to determining the future of people - and no one bats an eye.
The statistic works just fine for what it's designed to do.
What do you guys use? I've asked you several times and you've so far neglected to answer.
-
Maybe it was a bit low key. It was this part:
[Hoda Hawa, policy director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council] and others interviewed were particularly troubled by a question that she said asked the user to identify which of four or five posts on social media should raise alarm. Among the choices were a person posting about a plan to attend a political event, or someone with an Arabic name posting about going on βa missionβ overseas. The correct answer was the posting with the Arabic name.
Because obviously, only an Arab-Muslim rag head can ever possibly be a terrorist, right? An Arab-Muslim would never be in the U. S. military and so a mission overseas must always be a rag head mission of terror, right? And no one with a good-old-boy American name like Jared Lee Loughner would ever be going to a political rally to commit a terrorist act like shoot a U. S. Representative in the head, right? And now one with a good-old-boy American name like Timothy McVeigh would ever blow up a building and kill 168 people, including 19 kids, right?
So, and quite clearly, and because the FBI is dumber than a bag of rocks, the FBI edutainment program for students teaches them to "identify the rag head name" because that's always the terrorist, don't you know?
-
OK, read that bit more carefully. I don't see how it justifies your examples in a serious sense, but whatever. It's possible.
-
You know, this might come as a shocking revelation to you, but when one person loves another person very much, they occasionally get acquainted with each other's butts among other things.
It is very tempting to ο€ for
.
-
And what good exactly does such a comparison?
It might tell you that you need better students and/or teachers.
-
@Rhywden said:
And then we have a bunch of pseudo-scientific methods when it comes to determining the future of people - and no one bats an eye.
The statistic works just fine for what it's designed to do.
What do you guys use? I've asked you several times and you've so far neglected to answer.
We use the same flawed shit mandated from above because politicians don't understand math.
And, no, blakey, it doesn't work.
Take the German equivalent of the GPA, the German Abitur. The mean value of your Abitur determines whether you're allowed to study some high-profile subjects like medicine, pharmacology, jura or psychology (the higher your grade, the better your chances - if you have the equivalent of straight "A"s you're pretty much guaranteed a spot). But with a bit of waiting involved, you may also gain a spot if your grades are worse than that. Might take up to 6 years, though.
Now, a university with such a faculty (medicine, to be exact) began to doubt the wisdom of this threshold - because the tutors became aware that the grade of the Abitur was not such a great forecast for success after all.
Thus they designed their own entrance test which covered the skills they deemed necessary for succeeding. They then designed and did a study to determine whether their method was indeed better.
And guess what? The lower grades were just as successful as the higher grades if they passed the test. They also found that age was a more important determinant - the higher the age, the higher the chance of failure.
-
What do you guys use? I've asked you several times and you've so far neglected to answer.
In the UK, a university degree is either first class, second class (tier 1 or 2, usually referred to as 2:1 and 2:2), and third class. A first would basically equate to a 4.0 GPA.
For my maths degree, each module had a final percentage, mostly from the final exam but some from essays, weekly tests, seminars etc. The final grade is a mean of the individual module scores, potentially weighted if some were smaller modules but mine were all equal. Degree boundaries are a bit fluid and subject to a review board but typically 80% is a first, 70% is 2:1, etc.
It's not too different to GPA really, but metricised because 4 is a silly maximum
-
It's not too different to GPA really, but metricised because 4 is a silly maximum
Yes, 3 is much metricker.
entrance test
Yes, we use various metrics for entrance criteria, too. Now you've shown that things like GPA aren't super duper predictors, which is pretty obvious when you consider that they're not really standard, since different schools are always going to be different, some very much so.
-
It is very tempting to ο€ for
.Well, you should have specified that it was only related to one's own butt.
Having a head up someone else's ass is a perfectly normal bedtime activity.
-
The mean value of your Abitur determines whether you're allowed to study some high-profile subjects like medicine, pharmacology, jura or psychology
Well there's your problem right there.
American grad schools often consider your in-major GPA, which is the GPA calculated from only the courses related to your area of study, when determining if you can continue on, but anyone can try to study whatever they want. We also have entrance exams (your SATs, MCATs, and the like) to test aptitude apart from GPA.
-
Yes, we use various metrics for entrance criteria, too. Now you've shown that things like GPA aren't super duper predictors, which is pretty obvious when you consider that they're not really standard, since different schools are always going to be different, some very much so.
If it's not even standardized then I really don't see much of a point, other than saying: "Might have been good at school" or "Might not have been so good at school".
With "being good at school" only having a weak correlation with "being good at university".
-
@Rhywden said:
The mean value of your Abitur determines whether you're allowed to study some high-profile subjects like medicine, pharmacology, jura or psychology
Well there's your problem right there.
American grad schools often consider your in-major GPA, which is the GPA calculated from only the courses related to your area of study, when determining if you can continue on, but anyone can try to study whatever they want. We also have entrance exams (your SATs, MCATs, and the like) to test aptitude apart from GPA.
If it's not standardized as Blakey said, then you can pick and choose as much as you like. The numbers are still tainted and not even comparable to boot.
-
How do you mean "standardized"? Different schools use different textbooks and different teachers, leading to often widely different approaches to the subject material, meaning what was an easy course in one university might be harder in another. How do you ever get around that problem?
-
Yes, I get it that they're "numbers". However, not all "numbers" are equal
For the purposes of calculating grades abd GPA, yes they are.Quick example: You have three grades, one in math, one in a language, one in sports. To make the problem more apparent, let's also make them equally weighted.
In the world where many of us live. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.Pupil A: Math 1, language 2, sports 3
Pupil B: Math 2, language 2, sports 2
Pupil C: Math 3, language 2, sports 1All three have the same final grade: 2
In which world is that meaningful?
Not to mention that the same flawed methodology is used to create those grades in the first place. And the mean of flawed numbers does not magically become non-flawed just because you define it as such.
The only real flaw is the amount of importance attached to the final result (ie, the GPA). but the mere fact you you don't agree with the methodolgy doesn't make it flawed or pseudo-scientific..Grades are usually not equidistant because the "amount" of knowledge needed to go from F to D is not the same as from B to A.
Grades have nothing to do with "Amount of knowledge". They are a measure of performance. A person who gets higher scores on tests ends up with higher grades and a higher GPA. It's really that simple. Trying to conflate it with Climatology and Quantum Physics is just meaningless bullshit.
-
Grades have nothing to do with "Amount of knowledge". They are a measure of performance. A person who gets higher scores on tests ends up with higher grades and a higher GPA. It's really that simple. Trying to conflate it with Climatology and Quantum Physics is just meaningless bullshit.
Right. Your tests never tested for "knowledge"? I'd like to see those tests.
Pray tell, how do you test the performance of a pupil without also testing the knowledge?
And you didn't grasp my point about QM or Climatology at all.
-
How do you mean "standardized"? Different schools use different textbooks and different teachers, leading to often widely different approaches to the subject material, meaning what was an easy course in one university might be harder in another. How do you ever get around that problem?
You don't. That's what making those numbers especially worthless.
You said yourself: There are SATs, MCATs and the like. Now, why would you need those if the weighted GPA was useful?
-
So we're back on "The statistic doesn't mean what I want it to mean, so it's worthless". Can't help you there.
-
So we're back on "The statistic doesn't mean what I want it to mean, so it's worthless". Can't help you there.
I don't want the statistic to mean anything. I'm saying that the statistic does not state what you guys here seem to believe it does and is based on flawed assumptions.
And if the basis is flawed, the result is flawed as well.
-
I don't want the statistic to mean anything. I'm saying that the statistic does not state what you guys here seem to believe it does and is based on flawed assumptions.
That's ludicrous. You're asserting that because multiple metrics are useful, a particular metric is useless. Talk about pseudo-scientific bullshit. Or maybe we just live in a messier and more nuanced world than you do.
-
You're the one insisting that GPA is a measure of someone's ability to learn a particular subject. It's not. It's a measure of how well they're doing as a student overall. Someone with a low GPA is struggling, either because they can't learn the subject, or because they're taking too many courses at once and not setting aside time to study, or because they're having a personal crises, or for any number of reasons, but it absolutely indicates that they are struggling academically. Someone with a high GPA is performing well, and usually needs little to no aid in completing their studies.
-
That's ludicrous. You're asserting that because multiple metrics are useful, a particular metric is useless. Talk about pseudo-scientific bullshit. Or maybe we just live in a messier and more nuanced world than you do.
You're not making any sense. Where did I assert that "multiple metrics are useful"?
-
It's a measure of how well they're doing as a student overall.
Right. Then why do you weigh your GPA again, as you yourself stated if it's just meant to be an "overall indicator"?
-
You're not making any sense. Where did I assert that "multiple metrics are useful"
Oh, you're right. I guess you made the claim that only those standardized tests were worthwhile.
-
@Rhywden said:
You're not making any sense. Where did I assert that "multiple metrics are useful"
Oh, you're right. I guess you made the claim that only those standardized tests were worthwhile.
Don't expect me to hold my breath while you're trying to find me saying that.
-
why do you weigh your GPA again
Huh?
If you're asking why it's a weighted average, because courses with low credit hours usually are labs or other supplementary courses, and doing poorly on them isn't as strong an indicator of academic problems as doing poorly on the main subject courses.
-
If you're asking why it's a weighted average, because courses with low credit hours usually are labs or other supplementary courses, and doing poorly on them isn't as strong an indicator of academic problems as doing poorly on the main subject courses.
You said, and I quote:
American grad schools often consider your in-major GPA, which is the GPA calculated from only the courses related to your area of study
-
Oh, the in-major GPA. Sorry, your vague language was confusing me.
That's more accurate as a measure of your ability to absorb the material and to prioritize, because what you select as your major is presumably the area of study you care most about. If you're not able to keep up with the subject matter, you'll see the in-major GPA dip while the overall stays decent. If you're not actually as interested as you thought you were, same pattern. If you're overwhelmed, you tend to see the in-major GPA stay higher while the overall dips, because you spend what time you do have on the courses you care most about -- unless you're bad at prioritizing, in which case both numbers dip.
Now, for grad school, a low in-major GPA for a premed student with a high MCAT score indicates that, while the student is bright enough, they're not good at applying themselves when the work gets tedious, so they likely won't perform well in grad school. A low MCAT but a high GPA indicates that they don't test well but they're willing to go the extra mile to keep their grades up on projects and so forth.
I love data analysis, you can get all kinds of interesting insights from measuring things differently.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Rhywden said:
You're not making any sense. Where did I assert that "multiple metrics are useful"
Oh, you're right. I guess you made the claim that only those standardized tests were worthwhile.
Don't expect me to hold my breath while you're trying to find me saying that.
Oh. So you do think that using multiple metrics is useful, you just won't say it?
-
Oh. So you do think that using multiple metrics is useful, you just won't say it?
I'm saying that metrics are only useful if the methodology used to build said metric is sound.
And of course you'll need multiple metrics if some of them are baloney.
-
Oh, the in-major GPA. Sorry, your vague language was confusing me.
That's more accurate as a measure of your ability to absorb the material and to prioritize, because what you select as your major is presumably the area of study you care most about. If you're not able to keep up with the subject matter, you'll see the in-major GPA dip while the overall stays decent. If you're not actually as interested as you thought you were, same pattern. If you're overwhelmed, you tend to see the in-major GPA stay higher while the overall dips, because you spend what time you do have on the courses you care most about -- unless you're bad at prioritizing, in which case both numbers dip.
Now, for grad school, a low in-major GPA for a premed student with a high MCAT score indicates that, while the student is bright enough, they're not good at applying themselves when the work gets tedious, so they likely won't perform well in grad school. A low MCAT but a high GPA indicates that they don't test well but they're willing to go the extra mile to keep their grades up on projects and so forth.
I love data analysis, you can get all kinds of interesting insights from measuring things differently.
Now, if only there were studies actually supporting your assumptions.
-
I'm saying that metrics are only useful if the methodology used to build said metric is sound.
And of course you'll need multiple metrics if some of them are baloney.
You also need multiple metrics to look at different things or at the same thing from a different perspective.
-
Well, I'm getting back to work,
is getting tedious. Have fun railing against the injust world you've created in your mind.
-
@Rhywden said:
I'm saying that metrics are only useful if the methodology used to build said metric is sound.
And of course you'll need multiple metrics if some of them are baloney.
You also need multiple metrics to look at different things or at the same thing from a different perspective.
Weird, and here was me thinking that "multiple metrics" and "different perspectives" was already kind of the point of giving a grade for each subject.
-
Well, I'm getting back to work,
is getting tedious. Have fun railing against the injust world you've created in your mind.Maybe you should also consider that this data analysis world of yours may just not be based on such a solid ground as you think it is.
Shuffling numbers around and assigning meaning to the results without looking into whether that actually makes sense is only Numerology, after all.
-
Well, you should have specified that it was only related to one's own butt.
No, that complaint should be directed to blakey, as he's the one who brought up the subject of smelly asses.
-
Now, if only there were studies actually supporting your assumptions.
Indeed.
https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-05-03.pdf
From the abstract:
The results indicate that the combination of GRE scores and undergraduate grade point average strongly predicts cumulative graduate grade point average and faculty ratings.
-
In which universe is the acronym GRE equal to GPA?
-
None? GRE is a standardized entrance exam for graduate school. If you're looking for something in that quote to equate with GPA, I'd go with, "undergraduate grade point average."
-
None? GRE is a standardized entrance exam for graduate school. If you're looking for something in that quote to equate with GPA, I'd go with, "undergraduate grade point average."
By the way, where did I state that the GPA does not allow predictions at all? I distinctly remember saying that it allows only very broad conclusions, something you really don't need a numerical value for.
The correlations in the table are not that high, after all. Plus:
A measure of progress to degree also needs further work. Our efforts to define progress to
degree did not provide a reasonable outcome measure for a prediction study. This is a regrettable
result, since degree attainment is one of the first and most obvious measures of success in graduate
school. The research literature, however, consistently shows that it is difficult to predict which
students will attain a degree, undergraduate or graduate
-
By the way, where did I state that the GPA does not allow predictions at all?
You were calling it all pseudo-science, to be sure. Also:
I don't want the statistic to mean anything. I'm saying that the statistic does not state what you guys here seem to believe it does and is based on flawed assumptions.
And if the basis is flawed, the result is flawed as well.
The correlations in the table are not that high, after all.
Yes, prediction is hard, especially about the future. But those correlations also applied to the test scores, which you seemed to have some nice feelings about. Look, you spouted off a bunch of stuff that misapplied statistical analysis of categorical data and now you're
since you got called on it, including with studies regarding the data.
-
But those correlations also applied to the test scores, which you seemed to have some nice feelings about.
Oh, a number which supposedly shows that you're good at doing tests predicts that you may be good at even more tests.
Earth shattering result which of course allows you to snidely dismiss the actual issue. And the correlation wasn't even that strong.
-
Oh good, the more cynical than thou ploy. I love that one.
-
It's not really cynical - that's what all this hubbub about "teaching to the test" is about - you're getting your pupils to the point where they become really good at taking tests.
But the actual purpose becomes somewhat secondary - if even that much.
-
But the actual purpose becomes somewhat secondary
Maximizing the school's revenue (whether from the students, their parents, or the state)? No, that's never secondary.
-
Dude, we were talking about criteria for admission to graduate school. Now you're saying that predicting success when looking at an application isn't very interesting. Call it what you like.
-
Dude, we were talking about criteria for admission to graduate school. Now you're saying that predicting success when looking at an application isn't very interesting. Call it what you like.
"Predicting success" is interesting. It's just that succeeding grad school usually means the actual graduation (and not the tests in-between). And as your own study, which you yourself linked, admitted, predicting this success is a bit different from what you presented so far.
You're acting as if I avoided this topic. Maybe you should scroll up and read what I wrote regarding the success rates of students of medicine in Germany.
-
Flag for Off Topic. This isn't the Debate why grading systems are jacked thread.
