fordy said:
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
So if you're not new to this, why is your logic completely out the window? You're trying to argue your points from an Ethos standpont. I can see I'm going to have to dumb it down a bit, because you're obviously not getting it.
Firstly, the DERIVATIVE value of benefit (x-1970) differs from the DISPLACED value of cost (y - '0') not only in terms of initial value, but also in terms of skew. since we're working on a % difference from a set value, any sharp, notable rises are represented on a far shallower incline than what they actually represent.
Secondly, you're placing two axes with no correlation towards the other whatsoever on the same axis. Do we know that $150k should warrant exaclty twice the performance of $50k? Who is making this assumption of scale?
Thridly, you mentioned yourself that NAEP tests do not change. If that's the case, then hwo are the kids who achieved the ceiling mark in 1970 supposed to be outdone on performance? And back to my 1970 argument. If the kids did incredibly poorly in the 1970s, we'd be seeing an incredible climb in the statistics, but the fact that the the hurdle of the majority of score had already been cleared by 1970, you have a much smaller window to achieve the same performance boost, especially with a ceiling involved. Students COULD be performing better, but the ones "saturated" at the ceiling are throwing off the true figures.
I've mentioned a few factors already, such as the rising cost in classroom needs, the rising QUANTITY in classroom needs and the association of a cost and benefit on the same axis. I see those never got mentioned again. You're arguing that spending more doesn't make a difference, I'm arguing that it could work differently than a linear scale. This graph assumes linearity between both.
|
1) Considering there is basically zero change in NAEP results, this is a meanginless statement.
2) See 1.
3) Again... see 1. You haven't mentioned any factors with any actual evidence to suggest they should be worth considering. Also... this is spending per student. So quantity would be irrelevent.
4) See 3.
If you have actual data, feel free to present it... otherwise I'm not going to provide data point after data point right down to water content levels because your too lazy and uninformed to come up with anything to support your arguements.
|
You're relying too much on the result of the graph, and making the assumption that students aren't performing better. As I stated in my 3rd case, since the tests contain a ceiling, saturation of improvement can occur at 100%. Students might likely be more capable, but a fixed exam can not really take that into account, can it? After all, they're not changing, and they're not asking a limitless number of questions (you ARE taking the average scores between students as a measurement, are you not?) This makes your first point completely debatable, which you base most of your answer on.
What is this cyclic shit? I dont have to worry about saturation because the results didn't change? Don't you understand? The saturation CAN change the results, and for tests, upper hand saturation can make performance look much worse than it actually is. Why are you relying so heavily on this graph with no backup? The onus is on you to provide the evidence that this graph takes saturation into account. this isn't "I have a graph and it's totally right, so unless you have evidence to prove me wrong, then I'm right". That's how religious arguments work, not logical ones.
|
