Which is statistically 'harder' to achieve ??

D

davidkerr1

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
3
Hi All,

This is a real life Q to understand which schools have a better teaching standard based on exam scores vs student numbers

------------------------------------------------------

Which is statistically harder to achieve :?: :?:

SCHOOL A
School with 100 students where 80% achieve a score of A+ (9 out of 10 exam score)

OR

SCHOOL B
School with 300 students where 80% achieve a score of A+ (9 out of 10 exam score)

------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

David
 
davidkerr1 said:
Hi All,

This is a real life Q to understand which schools have a better teaching standard based on exam scores vs student numbers

------------------------------------------------------

Which is statistically harder to achieve :?: :?:

SCHOOL A
School with 100 students where 80% achieve a score of A+ (9 out of 10 exam score)

OR

SCHOOL B
School with 300 students where 80% achieve a score of A+ (9 out of 10 exam score)

------------------------------------------------------

Thanks

David
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts?

Please share your work with us ...even if you know it is wrong

If you are stuck at the beginning tell us and we'll start with the definitions.

You need to read the rules of this forum. Please read the post titled "Read before Posting" at the following URL:

http://www.freemathhelp.com/forum/announcement.php?f=35
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Subhotosh Khan said:
What are your thoughts?

Please share your work with us ...even if you know it is wrong
If you are stuck at the beginning tell us and we'll start with the definitions.
You need to read the rules of this forum. Please read the post titled "Read before Posting" at the following URL:
http://www.freemathhelp.com/forum/th...Before-Posting
Click to expand...

I clicked on that link and it says the link is broken ... tracked it via a Google search


Here is my working:

School A
100 (student no) x 0.8 = 80 students (received an A+)

School B
300 (student no) x 0.8 = 240 students (received an A+)

This just tells me numbers of students (A+) but not which is statistically harder to achieve those numbers by the school / teacher

I am stuck on calculating the statistics part ...

i.e.
Is it statistically harder to get 100 students to achieve A+ (90%) or 300 students to achieve A+ (90%) ?

(FYI - I am a parent comparing schools)
 
davidkerr1 said:
Here is my working:

School A
100 (student no) x 0.8 = 80 students (received an A+)

School B
300 (student no) x 0.8 = 240 students (received an A+)

This just tells me numbers of students (A+) but not which is statistically harder to achieve those numbers by the school / teacher
Click to expand...
Since all you have is the percentage achieving the score, there is no way to find anything else. As you note, you would need, at the very least, information on the student pool and the instructors (the "inputs") before being able intelligently to compare the grades (the "outputs"). ;)
 
davidkerr1 said:
I clicked on that link and it says the link is broken ... tracked it via a Google search


Here is my working:

School A
100 (student no) x 0.8 = 80 students (received an A+)

School B
300 (student no) x 0.8 = 240 students (received an A+)

This just tells me numbers of students (A+) but not which is statistically harder to achieve those numbers by the school / teacher

I am stuck on calculating the statistics part ...

i.e.
Is it statistically harder to get 100 students to achieve A+ (90%) or 300 students to achieve A+ (90%) ?

(FYI - I am a parent comparing schools)
Click to expand...

The rate (80%) is the same, so, in one sense at least, they perform equally well (although one might say equally poorly). That is eight out 10 students achieve an A+ in both schools.

About that equally poorly: I was raised under the system where the performance of the students, and thus the grades, approximately followed a normal curve for the grades A, B, C, D, and F (I still wonder why there was no E). So, approximately and overall, the same number of students who failed, got an F, were (percentage wise) about the same number of students who got an A. The B and D categories compared the same way. The "gentlemen's C" covered the widest range and I don't really remember what the other categories were but I think it might have been A's and B's [and thus D's and F's] covered about 15-20% of the students and C's covered about 60-70%, i.e. within about 1 standard deviation from the mean. So, IMO, any school which has a 80% A+ rate has too low a teaching standard (unless there are other circumstances which would tend to make this possible, i.e. the students in the schools are in the top 5-15% of all students in the area). This could be another indication that 'they' (who ever 'they' are) are just 'moving the students down the line' to make sure they get their city/county/state/federal money for 'teaching'.
 
stapel said:
Since all you have is the percentage achieving the score, there is no way to find anything else. As you note, you would need, at the very least, information on the student pool and the instructors (the "inputs") before being able intelligently to compare the grades (the "outputs"). ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe the question I am asking is ambiguous

I am trying to understand is it statistically harder for a school to educate a larger pool of students to an average of X than a smaller pool of students ?

Thanks
 
davidkerr1 said:
Maybe the question I am asking is ambiguous

I am trying to understand is it statistically harder for a school to educate a larger pool of students to an average of X than a smaller pool of students ?
Click to expand...
Given the same inputs (in quality of instructors, materials, and facilities; and the preparation and support of the students), one would, statistically, expect the same outputs. Unless you have information to the contrary, the size of the "population" would not be relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top