I used the information and worked backwards to get the admissions standards indexes (in case you didn't notice), which is not the usual way of course.  But, the + correlation that was found using the large database from U.S. News is all that matters.  It suggests that your admissions standards have probably fallen given the drop in freshman retention.

Again, THANK YOU for your very substantial quantitative analyses of the damage Shelby is doing to USM.

Geaux Tigers! (Which is where I will send my children to college if USM doesn't shape up.    )

quote:

---

Originally posted by: LSU Social Science Grad Student
"
One other interesting fact. The number of true freshman enrolling there seems to be dropping in recent years (see the newspaper article), despite the fact that admissions standards are falling (see table above). This seems to me to be casual empiricism in support of my earlier report (posted on the home page of this site). That is, the damage being done there by administration scandals is dominating the effect of lower admissions standards on the number of true freshmen that are choosing to attend USM. The scandals are also (possibly) adding to the drop in enrollee quality being generated by the reduction in admission standards. "

---

dear lsu social science graduate student:  you present an interesting analysis.  but i have some problems with your analysis.

1.  correlational analyses cannot prove causal claims.  your comment about a "supposed" change in our admissions policy is not warranted by your analyses.  crunch it as much as you like, you can't make a causal claim.

2.  I assume you know your data sets may have problems.   In particular, as I looked at the raw numbers the university of mississippi at about 2000 began to have more freshman admissions than MSU or USM.  In particular, Ole Miss began to admit more freshmen than MSU (who led into fall 1999) in about 2000 and by 2003 was leading the pack.  If Ole Miss is taking the brightest freshmen (given Barksdale Honors College and Phi Beta Kappa designation) then you have to acknowledge that you may have a range restriction problem.  places like USM maybe aren't getting the high ACT students they were a few years ago.  that isn't necessarily an admissions policy decision.

the reason that i respond to the causal analysis reasoning is that it easy to commit too many "false cause" analyses in these discussions.  to argue that you see a pattern in the data and attribute it to a cause, when you know your analyses can't make such a conclusion, is wrong.  and when your discussion name implies a certain sophistication in statistical analysis, then it's an additional problem. 

i won't begin to wonder about the analyses themselves. 

let me say at the beginning of this note that i've posted earlier on this and other threads and they have not appeared.  i am worried about subtle censorship going on. 

to the lsu social science graduate student:

upon further examination of your analyses i am curious about your conclusion that "as you can see, your president initiated a looser admission stance in 2002 and it took a dive . . . ." really!!

the weights you cited to prove your point were as follows:

2001--1.365

2002--1.353

as I can see (as a trained social scientist) those weights (if that is what you are reporting, because you aren't clear) aren't all that different.  give me some signficance tests (what you provide aren't sufficient).  show your training!  if you're getting adequate training you know that you're not providing sufficient information.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"let me say at the beginning of this note that i've posted earlier on this and other threads and they have not appeared.  i am worried about subtle censorship going on.  to the lsu social science graduate student: upon further examination of your analyses i am curious about your conclusion that "as you can see, your president initiated a looser admission stance in 2002 and it took a dive . . . ." really!! the weights you cited to prove your point were as follows: 2001--1.365 2002--1.353 as I can see (as a trained social scientist) those weights (if that is what you are reporting, because you aren't clear) aren't all that different.  give me some signficance tests (what you provide aren't sufficient).  show your training!  if you're getting adequate training you know that you're not providing sufficient information.   "

---

Let me say that I have censored NOTHING on this thread.  You accused me of such on another thread and I told you that I had deleted nothing on that thread, either, to which you responded that you had made a mistake.

Please do not accuse me of editing threads--the only time I remove posts are when they are purposefully disruptive, spam, or attacks on other members of this board.  Period.

If there is a glitch with the board (it happens on EVERY message board), that is beyond my control.  However, no one else has had any problems.  And I am NOT deleting posts or censoring THIS thread or the other one by the LSU grad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: lddad
"don't use caps.  don't lecture me!  if you have a slower system than i am used to--then it's slow!  I have screen shots of these pages.  i know what i'm responding to.  i guess i'm used to more responsive boards.  sorry!?"

---

Please email me any screen shots you have of the threads you have complained about which demonstrate that I have in any way edited these threads.

I am waiting by my inbox. 

(Oh, and if you accuse me of doing something that I have not done, I will use caps and boldface so that EVERYONE who visits this thread will be sure to see my response to your accusations.)

Fire Shelby:

Exactly what I was thinking.  He/she was mad about your supposed lecture but wanted you to gloss over an accusation of censorship?  It has been said before on this board (by Elliott or someone, I can't remember) that if you read Iddad closely, he/she is not a truly anti-Thames person.  I've noticed recently some movement in that direction, but after this one I think I know where iddad stands on the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: word on the street
"in lldad's defense I sometimes can't get a message to post.  One time I had so much trouble I thought I was accidently banned or something.  However, the next day everything was fine. I also have thought that a post was on a page only to go back and not be able to find it.  I just thought that with so many posts that I must be mistaken and must be on the wrong list.  Incidentally, I'm not a techie and was wondering when you read our IP addresses are you able to identify who we 'really' are <and> would ST's techies be able to do some magic techie thing and identify our IP addresses? Just wondering?   "

---

In my defense, let me say that one shouldn't automatically assume that just because a post doesn't show up, I must have edited it out.

On occasion, I have wondered why a post of my own didn't show up.  I went back to the message board main page, hit refresh or reload (depending on your browser) and then clicked on the thread, and there it was.

The only people who should worry that I have removed their posts are the ones who disrupt, spam, or attack others.  I don't read through threads and delete all posts with which I don't agree. Frankly, I don't have the time or desire to do so.

As the rules state, however, if people have problems posting or questions about rules here, they can email me--these discussions, as evidenced in this thread, contribute nothing to the topic at hand.  A thread about USM's enrollment has now turned into a thread about the mechanics of posting on this message board.  I request that ANYONE who has trouble posting please email me and we can work it out.

Now let's talk about IP addresses.  This message board is sponsored on a third party host (as is the website and my email).  USM has NO WAY to access any information about people who post on this thread via IP addresses through the log that I see of IP addresses.  Let me warn you, though, that if you are posting from a USM account, then it is possible that your activity can be monitored. (I have also heard that telephones at USM are being monitored, but can't substantiate that.)

I have no way of knowing who you are (your real world identity) unless you email me and tell me who you are.  The only thing I can ascertain is who your internet service provider is--for example, Cox, AOL, Megagate, USM.  IP addresses can't tell me anything about you, individually.

I founded this message board as a service to the people at USM who share the goals of my website. Even if I could (and I can't), I have no desire to use this message board to seek out the identities of others.  I am thrilled that so many people are participating.

Even supporters of Thames who have emailed me to ask questions about the board remain anonymous.  I have NO DESIRE to betray the trust of ANYONE who emails me or who posts on this message board.