Professors sharing stories of how they got into graduate schoolpic.twitter.com/Et9pGzJSSE
-
Let's face it, none of us really know (unless our advisors told us what they liked in our applications, but even that's assuming they had accurate insight into their decisions).
This Dawes paper shows that a regression model of an admissions committee's past decisions will outperform the committee that the model was built on http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1971-25701-001 …
-
-
In other words, a couple of lines of R code probably have more accurate insight into your advisor's decisions than your advisor does ;)
-
The meta-analyses confirm that too—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24041118/ … At most, holistic judgments can equal an equation (even a fairly poor one), and then probably just because the person is mentally just adding up the scores.
-
This is a little different. The paramorphic model in Dawes isn’t a model of outcomes. Just the committee decisions. But *that* model does better than the committee itself in predicting the outcomes
-
Ah, okay. The “man vs model of man” comparison. Similar findings in clinical diagnosis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.