blzrchick2 wrote:Hey TheSeaLocust, here's another one for you, if you have the time!
Top 33%: 3.275
Top 25%: 3.400
Top 10%: 3.615
What rough percentile is a 3.739?
There's no point in doing the math once you're above the top 10%. If it's by a noticeable margin, you're probably top 5%. But until you have a lot of data points, you can't actually use normal curve behavior to estimate. By definition if you have exceeded the top 10% by a substantial margin, there aren't going to be enough people (read: enough data) for the calculation to be meaningful, because outliers are (by their nature) unpredictable. One year there may be 5 4.0s and nobody between 3.8 and 4.0, the next year there might be a huge clump of people at 3.7 and you'd be top of the class. You can't answer those questions with statistics after one semester of grades.
That being said, I can't stop myself from doing the math, which spits out the number ~top 6%.
Previous post where I claimed I am a math major and your theories are ridiculous directed specifically at this comment, but applies generally to your other speculations. First, stop saying "you ran the math," you are either shorthand guessing based on part-math and some "guess" that's not a stats formula, or you are plugging data into a program...now I don't have problem with your (computer's) guessing, but I have a problem with your arrogant analysis of what the computer told you...
Do you even know what a curve is? Can you truly assume that the top 10%of the class "outliers" are really grabbing all the top grades in a limited curve? For 3 years? And it's going to vary some 3 year-sets from a 4.0 to a 3.7? What the hell?
Assuming it's some semblance of a standard curve, where 10% of a given grade set in a given course gets a 4.0, you are now assuming so many in the top 10%+ of the entire class, will be taking most/all of the top 10% in a given course? Rather than just having a reasonably good average over all their classes?
I don't know where you are attributing this uniqueness among top 10, but it is certainly not statistical study. This is not an income distribution model, we have a known high-point and a known distribution of grades in a given course and how many there actually can be numerically to get near the ceiling...
Statistics and basic math demonstrates that in this situation it becomes significantly HARDER for the top 10% (read: less likely) to be outliers from blzrchick2's stats on the %tiles, with so few grades that can pull one up from a 3.6x to a 4.0, in an given course (read: so many less even "chances" for a given person to successively pull those very few grades.)
With such a limited ceiling available to pull grades up dramatically, for a person on that curve, and the concept that ones GPA is composed of several different ranges, the upper range is very stunted, which would make more sense that people would clump much closer to the 3.615 top 10%, not away from it into the upper echelons of nonsense-theory you make up to trick law students who can't calculate a simple tip at a restaurant...