Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
What's the old line? Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
Sounds like a particularly difficult thing to model. I will be intereseted in seeing the published article and inevitable critiques.
|
I've read the abstract, and the authors' discussions. Premise: artificially place a whole line of people into slots in schools that they would not have normally tested/applied into. (The model being, the schools are ranked from the top/hardest/most-prestigious to the bottom/easiest/least-prestigious. Like mine.) Because they are placed into a rigor for which they may not be prepared through their past learning, they end up occupying the lowest rungs of the academic ranking in their respective schools, with the concomitant rates of failure and nonachievement. Without the artificial placement, people would go into the schools which they tested into more appropriately - i.e., the line of applicants would still mostly get in to some school, but the line would shift down to fill lower-ranked slots in lower-ranked schools. They would all thus occupy a more random pattern of ranking within those schools, with a higher passing rate and a more fruitful learning experience. Thus, more successful, graduated, bar-passed lawyers. (The failure rate among people admitted through any kind of AA criteria is very high - theory is, they get in, but aren't prepared to swim in that pool.)
