USC sticker vs. Loyola L.A. 87k (top 30% stip.) Forum

[20160810]

It is one hundred percent false that chimp has a 70 percent chance of losing his scholarship. That which is up to ones' performance is inherently not able to be predicted to a tee. Would Phil Ivey have only a 10 percent chance of winning a poker game with any nine random people? Of course not. OP has better than a 30 percent chance of keeping his scholarship given he has a prior record of OP success.

Logical flaw: Assumes pre-LS success is an accurate predictor of LS success.

Not assuming that - you assumed it isn't.

It is more accurate than say a chance bet.

If you compete against special ed kids in math, and are not a special ed kid, I would bet you won't be under median.

Oh boy...

[vanwinkle]

It is one hundred percent false that chimp has a 70 percent chance of losing his scholarship. That which is up to ones' performance is inherently not able to be predicted to a tee. Would Phil Ivey have only a 10 percent chance of winning a poker game with any nine random people? Of course not. OP has better than a 30 percent chance of keeping his scholarship given he has a prior record of OP success.

Logical flaw: Assumes pre-LS success is an accurate predictor of LS success.

Not assuming that - you assumed it isn't.

It is more accurate than say a chance bet.

If you compete against special ed kids in math, and are not a special ed kid, I would bet you won't be under median.

I love how you say "not assuming that" and then assume it in your very next sentence. Brilliant.

Oh, and that special ed metaphor? WTF LOL.

[AffordablePrep]

It is one hundred percent false that chimp has a 70 percent chance of losing his scholarship. That which is up to ones' performance is inherently not able to be predicted to a tee. Would Phil Ivey have only a 10 percent chance of winning a poker game with any nine random people? Of course not. OP has better than a 30 percent chance of keeping his scholarship given he has a prior record of OP success.

Logical flaw: Assumes pre-LS success is an accurate predictor of LS success.

Not assuming that - you assumed it isn't.

It is more accurate than say a chance bet.

If you compete against special ed kids in math, and are not a special ed kid, I would bet you won't be under median.

I love how you say "not assuming that" and then assume it in your very next sentence. Brilliant.

Oh, and that special ed metaphor? WTF LOL.

i didn't assume it was accurate. the word accurate suggests a relative level of precision (i.e. 90th percentile lsat for an LS means top 10% first yr grades.) I'm just saying that this person is a good bet to be over median.

[vanwinkle]

i didn't assume it was accurate. the word accurate suggests a relative level of precision (i.e. 90th percentile lsat for an LS means top 10% first yr grades.) I'm just saying that this person is a good bet to be over median.

But you just said it's "more accurate" than a bet. Therefore you assume it has at least some accuracy. If it's not an accurate predictor at all, then it couldn't be "more accurate" than pure chance.

I'm not talking about degree of precision, I'm not talking about how accurate it is, I'm not talking about whether it's highly accurate. I'm talking about your assumption that your method is accurate at all in any way, shape, or form. I'm talking about your incredibly stupid assumption that the person is a "good bet to be over median". You're assuming that to be true, and that assumption is wrong.