3 ms·

R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third g

R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. R.e. your study: this table (https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo) claims that ECE (i.e. pre-k and 3k) cause a twelve percentage point (20%) increase in the likelihood of graduating from high school. That does not pass the sniff test for me. The effect size is far too large -- it would be plain to everyone that ECE was a must-have if the effect were this big. No parent would opt not to send their kid to pre-K. The study authors acknowledge serious limitations to their methodology: > Limitations: Research is needed to address several important limitations of the work presented. First and most importantly, circumstances surrounding today’s ECE programs differ from those associated with many of the programs included in this analysis. Many programs in this analysis were implemented at a time when alternative care options were limited, mostly targeted particularly high-risk children, often included comprehensive “wrap-around” services and home visiting components, and frequently provided services for multiple years at a time. IMO, you cannot cite this study in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") in good conscience. It is a bad study, at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids.

mlyle 6y ago
> R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. Yes, so there was a positive effect that was no longer measurable by third grade, when we're looking at the dose response of kindergarten. (And there's other studies pointing the other way re: dose-response). And, we're talking about kindergarten in general, not the marginal benefits of higher doses of kindergarten. That is-- if 200 mg ibuprofen is the standard of care, and we find people taking 400mg of ibuprofen have better outcomes than 200mg, then we think that probably ibuprofen is good (and 200mg would probably be better than 0). If we find taking 4000mg of ibuprofen is worse than taking 200mg, we can't really form any conclusions about the overall merits of 200mg vs. 0. > That does not pass the sniff test for me OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive. > IMO, you cannot cite this study It's not a study, it's a meta-analysis. > in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. > It is a bad study It summarizes all the high quality research we have on the subject, and mentions/criticizes the earlier meta-analyses (which included many more component studies and found similar magnitudes of effect). > at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids. Of course, some of the component studies were of lower risk populations.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo. I'm done with you.
  - dang 6y ago
    You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please do not take HN further into flamewars, and please don't get involved in nasty tit-for-tat spats. Those are particularly tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Just to be clear, at what point did I cross the line? Just with the final comment? Or when it became a back and forth where he was being unpleasant? The way the site guidelines you cited to me are worded, I ought to stop responding even if I'm responding in good faith and trying to be polite. I just want to confirm that that's true.
      - dang 6y ago
        Your comments contained good information and points (fine) mixed in with swipes and flamewar (not fine), e.g. "OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive." and "I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo." are tit-for-tat flamewar and "I'm done with you." is personally rude.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Ok, thanks. I'm sorry about this. I got frustrated because I felt like I had been responding in good faith for a whole series of comments and the other person was being rude to me in all their comments -- not just in this branch, but in the other branch of this convo where we interacted. But I should be an adult and hold my temper. I'll do better next time.

mlyle 6y ago

> R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. Yes, so there was a positive effect that was no longer measurable by third grade, when we're looking at the dose response of kindergarten. (And there's other studies pointing the other way re: dose-response). And, we're talking about kindergarten in general, not the marginal benefits of higher doses of kindergarten. That is-- if 200 mg ibuprofen is the standard of care, and we find people taking 400mg of ibuprofen have better outcomes than 200mg, then we think that probably ibuprofen is good (and 200mg would probably be better than 0). If we find taking 4000mg of ibuprofen is worse than taking 200mg, we can't really form any conclusions about the overall merits of 200mg vs. 0. > That does not pass the sniff test for me OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive. > IMO, you cannot cite this study It's not a study, it's a meta-analysis. > in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. > It is a bad study It summarizes all the high quality research we have on the subject, and mentions/criticizes the earlier meta-analyses (which included many more component studies and found similar magnitudes of effect). > at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids. Of course, some of the component studies were of lower risk populations.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo. I'm done with you.
- dang 6y ago
  You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please do not take HN further into flamewars, and please don't get involved in nasty tit-for-tat spats. Those are particularly tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Just to be clear, at what point did I cross the line? Just with the final comment? Or when it became a back and forth where he was being unpleasant? The way the site guidelines you cited to me are worded, I ought to stop responding even if I'm responding in good faith and trying to be polite. I just want to confirm that that's true.
    - dang 6y ago
      Your comments contained good information and points (fine) mixed in with swipes and flamewar (not fine), e.g. "OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive." and "I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo." are tit-for-tat flamewar and "I'm done with you." is personally rude.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Ok, thanks. I'm sorry about this. I got frustrated because I felt like I had been responding in good faith for a whole series of comments and the other person was being rude to me in all their comments -- not just in this branch, but in the other branch of this convo where we interacted. But I should be an adult and hold my temper. I'll do better next time.