2 ms·
You don't need information theory to tell me that 1% is less than 5%. Obviously scoring in the top 1% of a test everyone takes provides more information than ge
by colinmhayes 5y ago
You don't need information theory to tell me that 1% is less than 5%. Obviously scoring in the top 1% of a test everyone takes provides more information than getting a 5 on an AP test. But that 5 still provides, as you put it, 4ish bits of information, which is a lot more than the 0 you have without it or other standardized tests.
How many bits do you really need to know that you're a good candidate for continued education? Is being in the top 5% really not enough?
- kragen 5y agoZero bits, because everyone is a good candidate for continued education. From the point of view of MIT, admitting you has a significant downside: they have to turn down someone else, someone who might have been able to do better research than you do and donate more as an alumnus. But from the point of view of an individual person, more education is always better, because your alternative to education is not admitting someone better; your alternative to education is ignorance. (Schooling may not be the best way to get that education, however... far too many people opt for ignorance after their schooling.) I didn't say the 5 gives you 4ish bits of information. I said it gives you 1.4 bits of information. That's only 35% of 4, not very 4ish at all. It's barely in the order of magnitude centered on 4 (1.26 to 12.6).
- colinmhayes 5y ago> I didn't say the 5 gives you 4ish bits of information. I said it gives you 1.4 bits of information. Which is obviously wrong. The self-selection does provide a lot of information. Students who believe themselves unlikely to score well are unlikely to take the test, which is why so many students get a 5.