3 ms·

I'm surprised at the comments here. Seems that nearly everyone disagrees with the blog? Is Bill Gates such a saint among the HN crowd that we ignore statistics

I'm surprised at the comments here. Seems that nearly everyone disagrees with the blog? Is Bill Gates such a saint among the HN crowd that we ignore statistics for him? Also, see this blog for some more discussion along the same lines: http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2013/01/gates-foundation-wastes-more-money.html http://ed2worlds.blogspot.com/2013/01/gates-foundation-waste... Seems pretty clear that Gates' study presents the data in a very misleading manner to make a very weak correlation look like a very strong correlation.

ef4 14y ago
The blog post doesn't have any statistics to ignore. Graphs are not statistics. Why doesn't he give us a correlation coefficient on his big blue blob graph?
- streptomycin 14y ago
  You criticize a short blog post for something that is not done in the Gates publication. Do you have some bias, perhaps? Why does Gates not even give us a scatter plot, let alone a correlation coefficient? This is the critical point raised by the blog.
  - spikels 14y ago
    There are quite a few statistics reported in the Gates Foundation publication. Take a look for yourself: http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Random_Assignment_Research_Paper.pdf http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Ran...
    - streptomycin 14y ago
      I never said they don't report "quite a few statistics". I said they don't report this one specific particularly important statistic, and instead obscure it behind a ridiculous averaging procedure. This was either done because they are incompetent or because they are purposely trying to mislead. That's the whole point of TFA.
      - spikels 14y ago
        What one particular statistic do you want? Take a look at the FULL report. All the statistics behind the graph you criticize are in Table 1 on page 10. The next 40 pages seem to be a pretty competent description of both the strengths and weaknesses of their study.
- jhales 14y ago
  Was thinking the same thing. I think it is: "...correlation coefficient of .35..." Found it following the link: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-released-nyc-value-added-data-part-1/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-re...

ef4 14y ago

The blog post doesn't have any statistics to ignore. Graphs are not statistics. Why doesn't he give us a correlation coefficient on his big blue blob graph?

streptomycin 14y ago
You criticize a short blog post for something that is not done in the Gates publication. Do you have some bias, perhaps? Why does Gates not even give us a scatter plot, let alone a correlation coefficient? This is the critical point raised by the blog.
- spikels 14y ago
  There are quite a few statistics reported in the Gates Foundation publication. Take a look for yourself: http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Random_Assignment_Research_Paper.pdf http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Validating_Using_Ran...
  - streptomycin 14y ago
    I never said they don't report "quite a few statistics". I said they don't report this one specific particularly important statistic, and instead obscure it behind a ridiculous averaging procedure. This was either done because they are incompetent or because they are purposely trying to mislead. That's the whole point of TFA.
    - spikels 14y ago
      What one particular statistic do you want? Take a look at the FULL report. All the statistics behind the graph you criticize are in Table 1 on page 10. The next 40 pages seem to be a pretty competent description of both the strengths and weaknesses of their study.
jhales 14y ago
Was thinking the same thing. I think it is: "...correlation coefficient of .35..." Found it following the link: http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-released-nyc-value-added-data-part-1/ http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/02/26/analyzing-re...