3 ms·

Huh? I learned in school that sooner or later anecdotes become statistics. If you didn't learn that you are missing something. So here is the statistics for yo

Huh? I learned in school that sooner or later anecdotes become statistics. If you didn't learn that you are missing something. So here is the statistics for you. 2400 elementary schools in NY state, ALL 30 SA schools is in the top 3% and 2/3s of the top 1.5% is SA schools. The claim was that the time you meet in school makes you perform poorer. 17% of NY elementary schools meet after 8.30, most meet between 8-8.30, SA schools meet 7.45. In what universe is that anecdotal? By all means.

tripzilch 7y ago
It was anecdotal because your example started as a story about your kids. The statistics you quote here are pretty much meaningless, so it doesn't change a thing. Let me explain why. If the SA schools perform consistently higher, and assuming for a school to be "SA" involves a bit more then starting at 7.45, then you need to compare the performance of SA schools that start at 7.45 with the performance of SA schools that start at 8.30. There aren't any? Then there is no way to tell. Not via statistics, at least. Your comparison of statistics changes way too many variables to make any conclusion. There's simply no way to tell if an SA school might not perform even better if they started later. Especially since the statistics you quote are not objective but "top X", which if they're already near the top, you couldn't measure improvement even if it was there. Similarly, without quoting the proper statistics, there is also no way to tell if the schools starting at 8.30 might not perform worse if you changed nothing but starting them at 7.45. The numbers you quote simply do not say anything about this. (also you're never going to prove anything about an effect in highschoolers by quoting irrelevant statistics about elementary schools) Either way, your numbers don't prove what you are claiming, yet you still hold to this claim. If your claim is not anecdotal, then it is simply wrong.

tripzilch 7y ago

It was anecdotal because your example started as a story about your kids. The statistics you quote here are pretty much meaningless, so it doesn't change a thing. Let me explain why. If the SA schools perform consistently higher, and assuming for a school to be "SA" involves a bit more then starting at 7.45, then you need to compare the performance of SA schools that start at 7.45 with the performance of SA schools that start at 8.30. There aren't any? Then there is no way to tell. Not via statistics, at least. Your comparison of statistics changes way too many variables to make any conclusion. There's simply no way to tell if an SA school might not perform even better if they started later. Especially since the statistics you quote are not objective but "top X", which if they're already near the top, you couldn't measure improvement even if it was there. Similarly, without quoting the proper statistics, there is also no way to tell if the schools starting at 8.30 might not perform worse if you changed nothing but starting them at 7.45. The numbers you quote simply do not say anything about this. (also you're never going to prove anything about an effect in highschoolers by quoting irrelevant statistics about elementary schools) Either way, your numbers don't prove what you are claiming, yet you still hold to this claim. If your claim is not anecdotal, then it is simply wrong.