Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
Reply to "MCPS v FCPS?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]someone posted this weird stat: TJ 79/200 = 39.5% Blair magnet 21/100 = 21% Why would you take out 200+ kids out of 423 (class in TJ) just because half go to UVA? How do you know if 100 of Blair magnet kids applied to HYP or whatever and not UMD? You really did pull that number out of your a$$. Don't make assumptions. Take the total number, even if half decided to not apply to those schools because you have no idea if 50%, 70%, or 10% of Blair magnet kids applied to those schools: 2015 to 2017 numbers: TJ 79/423 = 16.5% Blair magnet 100 (and assume all 21 on the polaris site are from the magnet) then 21/100 = 21%. [/quote] Ok: then don't discount that TJ is #4 in the country in US News. Moreover, because the scales are so different, you can't apply one rate to another: there is no guarantee that if you added 323 kids to Blair you would get the same rate-- especially as Blair argues that they get the best of the best out of MoCo-- which implies that that 100 is the best and everyone else would just not do as well (which implies only 21/423 in Blair would go to HYPS). Alternatively, if you took away 323 kids away from TJ, there is no guarantee that the rate would be the same-- one can argue that if we only kept the best 100, it would be 79 HYPS grads, such that it would be 79/100. That's why the numbers were broken down to show that before: it's the assumption of rate that is wrong. Even on a bell curve: you just don't know the rate, but you know the hard numbers. That's why the overall ranking is important to note and that the hard number vs the rate number is important in the comparison-- unless Blair ACTUALLY had the same magnet size, the "rate" argument is not sufficiently predictive and the assumption that rate makes sense is wrong. And it's why that assumption isn't used on PolarisList or US News or GS. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics