3 ms·
Oh I've read the article, and many like it. I'm not sure you've read my comment carefully though, because you seem to be missing the main point. Such studies ar
by zeteo 13y ago
Oh I've read the article, and many like it. I'm not sure you've read my comment carefully though, because you seem to be missing the main point. Such studies are largely invalidated by their very influence on the phenomenon they purport to describe. Do you think the applicants' belief they would earn 45% (or 70%, or 90%) more has no bearing on the labor and loan markets?
- beambot 13y agoAnd how would you fix the "flawed statistical studies" and "BS analyses"? Being critical is easy. Making cogent suggestions for improvements is hard. E.g. What data do you want? Where can you get it? What tests / analyses do you want them to run? This is a hard bloody problem, so I find "Monday quarterbacking" particularly frustrating -- especially when the priceomics folks are doing a good job of showing / communicating data with documented assumptions.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- zeteo 13y agoAdjust for socio-economic background. Separate by majors to avoid Simpson's paradox. And get a group of subjects who haven't been influenced by knowledge about this kind of studies.