4 ms·
You're asserting without any evidence that every student Y who "doesn't care about school" would not respond to the protocols described in this paper? This is a
by dnomad 8y ago
You're asserting without any evidence that every student Y who "doesn't care about school" would not respond to the protocols described in this paper? This is an extraordinary claim and probably wrong. It needs to verified with data. The paper does provide the basis for a logical next step: imposing these protocols on all students in a region and measuring the impact.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> You're asserting without any evidence that every student Y who "doesn't care about school" would not respond to the protocols described in this paper? No. They are simply stating the truth that there is no evidence it will work. It is basic selection bias.
- burfog 8y agoI don't know a proper name for the problem, but I don't think "selection bias" is really it. The problem is that the control is getting damaged by the experiment. The control is intended to be similarly-selected students (the lottery losers) in non-special schools, but there are also other students (never applied to the lottery) in those non-special schools who interfere with the experiment. The control students don't get to have those non-special schools to themselves.
- dagw 8y agoI don't know a proper name for the problem I think "confounding variable" would the describe the problem. Basically there are two variables that seem to affect the outcome, but since they only controlled for one of them, they can't tell if the second variable is affecting the experiment or not.