CT8 September 2018 – Predictions

[Interestec]

Well that's barely any different to the 52.5 - 64% range I formulated based on logical assumptions.

So you do acknowledge that even if it's barely different it's plausible it could be different?

The flaw in this argument is that you are assuming equal weighting on both groups. But based on historical data and the obvious incentive to clear this paper before it becomes two papers:
- There are ~ 250 re-sitters who were already pass standard students and they will drive the pass rate up
- There are ~ 634 students just taking a swing at this paper and they will drive the pass rate down
So the numbers driving down the pass rate exceed the numbers driving it up by a factor of 2.5.

I just didn't want to assume weighting. How do you know ~634 students were only taking a swing? Why not ~400. This was an unprecedented number of students, doesn't mean that there weren't all taking a swing. Maybe a lot of them tried harder in the effort to not have to do the 2 paper exam come April. Unless you polled every student or were a marker and had at least a subset of the papers or knew if the marks were far below 45% could you know for sure that 100s of unprepared students were turning up for the exam. A high failure rate doesn't necessarily mean that. There could have been 100s that scored in the 50-60% range meaning that they messed up just one question/calculation on the day. Doesn't make the likelihood of another student passing any more real.

We keep going back and forth, but at the end of the day you have by your own admission stated that your figures are based on logical assumptions. That means they've been 'GUESSTIMATED' aka made up based on what you perceive and think is logical. I haven't argued with most of those points and believe they're valid. However you can't just make up numbers and say that this is a definite range. Especially since you admitted in the last post that there's 'barely any difference'. You have allowed that there could be a difference, so why try assign a numerical value at all?

 

[Dom B]

So you do acknowledge that even if it's barely different it's plausible it could be different?

Well within the 3% tolerances I used

We keep going back and forth, but at the end of the day you have by your own admission stated that your figures are based on logical assumptions. That means they've been 'GUESSTIMATED' aka made up based on what you perceive and think is logical.

There is a substantial difference between logical assumptions based on past and present data and a 'guesstimate'. The former are used to build statistical and economic models in order to predict outcomes (see Chapter 10 of your CT8 notes) whereas the latter are 'just a guess'. It's important that you understand the difference if you are going to succeed in this profession.

 

[NorthernFusion]

Well within the 3% tolerances I used



There is a substantial difference between logical assumptions based on past and present data and a 'guesstimate'. The former are used to build statistical and economic models in order to predict outcomes (see Chapter 10 of your CT8 notes) whereas the latter are 'just a guess'. It's important that you understand the difference if you are going to succeed in this profession.

You've went from reasoning to berating because someone on this forum disagrees with your 'statistics'. I think your statistics are sugarcoated no matter how much you want to justify the use, am I now in danger of not succeeding in this profession?

 

[Dom B]

You've went from reasoning to berating because someone on this forum disagrees with your 'statistics'.

Here come the cavalry!
I'm not berating anyone, just stating a fact.

I think your statistics are sugarcoated no matter how much you want to justify the use

Oh well, that proves I'm wrong then!

 

[Interestec]

guesstimate - an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculation. You have used calculations and guesswork in coming up with your figures. I would hardly say logical assumptions were used for all of your made up figures. You have literally no evidence bar historical pass rates and this year's pass rate. You are making all assumptions through guesswork of what you perceive is correct. Sounds like guesswork to me.

Please don't sink to juvenile comments or start guessing again and making predictions that I can't succeed in this profession because I dared to argue with you and your logic

 

[Dom B]

You have used calculations and guesswork in coming up with your figures. I would hardly say logical assumptions were used for all of your made up figures

That's your opinion, but I politely refer you to my original post and subsequent detailed analysis.

Please don't sink to juvenile comments or start guessing again and making predictions that I can't succeed in this profession because I dared to argue with you.

I didn't say you can't succeed, everybody can succeed with the right adjustments. I said it's important to know the difference between data based assumptions and guesstimates. And i'm not arguing with you, I am just politely explaining why your statements are flawed.

 

[Dom B]

ACTED: I started this forum to undertake an analysis of the CT8 paper and subsequent pass rate but some individuals seem to be getting quite angry and upset about it. Therefore, I think it might be worth you considering closing this thread.

 

[Interestec]

I hope it wasn't me that you were referring to as I'm not angry or upset. I am only trying to reason that your analysis has no fact behind it other than your own 'logical' conclusions based on your own analysis. It is my opinion that it is for the most part guesswork. Throughout the thread I have stated that I believe some of your assumptions do have merit, I just don't believe that you can assign a numerical value as you are completely unaware of how prepared or unprepared people were. It is disingenuous to suggest that >600 students went into that exam completely for the heck of it with no real preparation. Every single student knows how much work goes into and each and every exam.

 

[NorthernFusion]

ACTED: I started this forum to undertake an analysis of the CT8 paper and subsequent pass rate but some individuals seem to be getting quite angry and upset about it. Therefore, I think it might be worth you considering closing this thread.

No, some individuals disagree with the analysis. Yet another assumption you've made that you'll no doubt justify.

 

[Dom B]

No, some individuals disagree with the analysis. Yet another assumption you've made that you'll no doubt justify.

Disagreeing is fine, but as yet noone has put forward any reasonable to challenge to the analysis I have done despite being seemingly desperate to do so and getting frustrated in the process.

 

[Dom B]

I hope it wasn't me that you were referring to as I'm not angry or upset. I am only trying to reason that your analysis has no fact behind it other than your own 'logical' conclusions based on your own analysis. It is my opinion that it is for the most part guesswork. Throughout the thread I have stated that I believe some of your assumptions do have merit, I just don't believe that you can assign a numerical value as you are completely unaware of how prepared or unprepared people were. It is disingenuous to suggest that >600 students went into that exam completely for the heck of it with no real preparation. Every single student knows how much work goes into and each and every exam.

I refer you to my 8.03pm post yesterday.

 

[Benoy Soman]

Erm I think this thread has perhaps run its course?
Exam is now done...not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things...first world problems ay haha

 

[Dom B]

Erm I think this thread has perhaps run its course?
Exam is now done...not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things...first world problems ay haha

My thoughts exactly

 

[student1990]

we know what the pass rate was now anyway. So although I can also see many flaws in the assumptions, and many things ignored, I don't really care

 

[Admin]

All done