100

[nerfstate]

Per cent
https://gopsusports.com/news/2019/10/16/general-2019-graduation-rate-report.aspx

21 points above the national average. #pride

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Great team

better program

 

[El-Jefe]

Great team

better program

Academics national champs.

 

[NothingMeaningful]

Academics national champs.

Airlines can push planes back from the gate and claim 100% on-time service, even if the planes just sit on the tarmac idling for hours.

Just sayin'

 

[crablegs1]

Per cent
https://gopsusports.com/news/2019/10/16/general-2019-graduation-rate-report.aspx

21 points above the national average. #pride

This is easy when you always get the top 10 P4P academic recruits every year.

 

[CentexLion]

Airlines can push planes back from the gate and claim 100% on-time service, even if the planes just sit on the tarmac idling for hours.

Just sayin'

Not even a close comparison. An equal comparison would be the planes on time arrival percentage. It’s not the starting point, but the destination and enjoyment of the journey along the way. Congrats to the team. 100% graduation for second year in a row while maintaining the highest sports standards as well.

 

[Dogwelder]

Yikes! ... I just noticed that if a student simply leaves his first school while not <ineligible to play sports due to bad grades>, even without saying whether he even has a second school lined up to transfer into, the first school will stop counting that student, as if that student never existed. So it seems the NCAA’s “Graduation Success Rate” (GSR) will fail to count failures to graduate, as long as the non-graduating kids are not <ineligible to play sports due to bad grades> at the moment when they leave school.

So, the “transfer” scenario described in some NCAA justifications for their GSR metric is just the NCAA’s tricky way of hiding what they are really doing with their misleading and misnamed GSR metric.

It seems one of those nasty SEC football schools can just get a kid’s grades up for one or two semesters using basketweaving classes, and then have the kid leave school and not be counted.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/why-gsr-better-methodology

 

[Dogwelder]

Not even a close comparison ...

Not close in the particulars, but uncomfortably close in the abstract sense.

It seems the NCAA’s GSR metric leaves a lot of room for manipulation. The numerator is good, in that it counts graduations, but the denominator is suspect, because it can fail to count drop outs—e.g., fail to count drop outs due to manipulation.

 

[El-Jefe]

Why are we tarnishing this accomplishment by going down the rabbit hole of statistical manipulation?

 

[Dogwelder]

In what way are WE tarnishing PSU’s accomplishment?

If the NCAA has a bullshit metric, there’s nothing wrong with pointing it out. If we read an article about GSR, then it is appropriate to discuss what GSR means.

In other words: why is the NCAA tarnishing ethical schools’ accomplishments by inviting the rabbit hole of statistical manipulation by cheating schools?

 

[El-Jefe]

This thread isn't about other schools' ethical issues. It's about PSU Wrestling having a 100% graduation rate.

We quickly challenged the 100% assertion. Then we started discussing how the rules allow Not 100% to be 100%. Dots are very easily connected.

Congrats to the guys for their 100% graduation rate accomplishment.

 

[Dogwelder]

The first rule of GSR is: we do not talk about GSR.

 

[Dogwelder]

This thread isn't about other schools' ethical issues. It's about PSU Wrestling having a 100% graduation rate.

We quickly challenged the 100% assertion. Then we started discussing how the rules allow Not 100% to be 100%. Dots are very easily connected.

Congrats to the guys for their 100% graduation rate accomplishment.

No. We don’t know that PSU has a 100% graduation rate. We don’t know what PSU’s graduation rate is.

All we know is that of the N people who left PSU without graduating, where N may be zero or greater than zero (they don’t tell us N), none of them left at a time of total academic disgrace.

 

[nerfstate]

Here they are. Who left early?

 

[Dogwelder]

Here they are. Who left early?

Exactly! We don’t even know who is or is not in the denominator without doing our own work!

I have to go on and on about this. This is the craziest sleaziest metric plus name-of-metric I have ever noticed.

I have never noticed any metric before in which it is so hard to know or envision who is in the denominator! I mean, if you are the parent of a high school athlete, and you want to compare colleges, you would want to compare the colleges’ numbers in which your child would be in the denominator. But as a parent you don’t even know if your child would be in the denominator! I cannot emphasize enough how crazy that is.

Just try to explain that denominator to a smart 6-year-old. That is Einstein’s ultimate test for understandability, presumably because a smart 6-year-old is the world’s ultimate bullshit detector. Try to explain that we are going to put the successes and total failures in the denominator but leave out the run-of-the-mill failures.

What the heck kind of population is that? It’s a synthetic population, determined at the *end* of the trial (!), not at the start, that literally no one would care about. I mean, why would any parent care only about total failures, and not run-of-the-mill failures, and not even the rate of total failures but, essentially, merely the odds of total failure vs success? And why would that weird self-amputated metric be named a graduation success *rate* unless it were intended to fool even smart people like Jefe into thinking that it is an actual graduation rate, which it is not.

Very sleazy. This metric is ideally suited to let SEC-type football factories continue to do their thing while pretending they’ve improved.

 

[crablegs1]

How would you prefer them to determine the denominator?

Would you want Nick Suriano counted as a dropout? Someone who was doing fine academically, but for personal reasons decided that PSU wasn’t the right school for him.

How about someone like Jason Renteria at Iowa? We don’t know his academic status, but let’s assume he was doing fine. The word is he left due to family health issues back home. Should he count as an academic drop out at Iowa?

 

[slushhead]

How would you prefer them to determine the denominator?

Would you want Nick Suriano counted as a dropout? Someone who was doing fine academically, but for personal reasons decided that PSU wasn’t the right school for him.

How about someone like Jason Renteria at Iowa? We don’t know his academic status, but let’s assume he was doing fine. The word is he left due to family health issues back home. Should he count as an academic drop out at Iowa?

I don't have a dog in the fight (though there is a dogwelder in there), but a Teasdale example may be more along the lines of what Welder is getting at.

Nevertheless, PSU wrestling is consistently showing good academic numbers, which is great for PSU fans to see.

 

[crablegs1]

I don't have a dog in the fight (though there is a dogwelder in there), but a Teasdale example may be more along the lines of what Welder is getting at.

Nevertheless, PSU wrestling is consistently showing good academic numbers, which is great for PSU fans to see.

If you think Teasdale and Renteria should be counted differently, how do you draw the line to differentiate their situations?

 

[slushhead]

If you think Teasdale and Renteria should be counted differently, how do you draw the line to differentiate their situations?

Beats me. If Renteria's academics are at play, which I'm not certain has been established, then maybe no line of distinction needs to be drawn?

I'm not trying to make a case either way. By saying I don't have a dog in the fight, what I mean is that I don't care enough about the argument to take a position. I just threw out another name that I thought might be more representative of Welder's point, knowing what we knew about that guy's academic standing last year. That's all.

 

[Dogwelder]

How would you prefer them to determine the denominator?
...

Thank you for thinking this through with me, Crablegs (and Slush)!

I think we should think about this from the customer usefulness point of view. If we were trying out for the Navy SEALs, we would want to hear something useful, such as:

“Men, look around you. There are 100 of you. At the end of the week, only 20 of you will qualify to enter the actual training to hopefully become SEALs. Of the remaining 80 who fail to qualify, 60 will fail because you decide to quit. Of the remaining 20, 15 will fail because we had to put you in the hospital for hypothermia or for being passed out or the like. Of the remaining 5, 4.5 will fail for serious injuries. The remaining 0.5 of you will fail due to death. So, our pass rate is 20%”

What we would not want is to hear “Men, our Pass Success Rate is 57 percent” and then to have only the handsome fine-print readers among us notice that the 57% number happens to be defined as the artificial ratio of <qualifiers> to <qualifiers plus non-seriously-injured-nor-dead hospitalized failures>, which is 20 / (20+15), so therefore 100% * 20 / 35 ~= 57%.

 

[CowboyUp61]

Thank you for thinking this through with me, Crablegs!

I think we should think about this from the customer usefulness point of view. If we were trying out for the Navy SEALs, we would want to hear something useful, such as:

“Men, look around you. There are 100 of you. At the end of the week, only 20 of you will qualify to enter the actual training to hopefully become SEALs. Of the remaining 80 who fail to qualify, 60 will fail because you decide to quit. Of the remaining 20, 15 will fail because we had to put you in the hospital for hypothermia or for being passed out or the like. Of the remaining 5, 4.5 will fail for serious injuries. The remaining 0.5 of you will fail due to death. So, our pass rate is 20%”

What we would not want is to hear “Men, our Pass Success Rate is 57 percent” and then to have only the handsome fine-print readers among us notice that the 57% number happens to be defined as the artificial ratio of <qualifiers> to <qualifiers plus non-seriously-injured-nor-dead hospitalized failures>, which is 20 / (20+15), so therefore 100% * 20 / 35 ~= 57%.

I think matter and I agree, way too much math.

 

[Dogwelder]

How would you prefer them to determine the denominator? ...

Generally, the denominator is not something you determine! [footnote]

To answer your question directly, I would have a school announce to parents: of our cohort of scholarship students admitted 6 years ago, 85% graduated from our university and 5% left while academically ineligible to play sports. The remaining 10% left our university while academically eligible to play sports, but we don’t have the count of how many of them transferred and graduated elsewhere versus did not yet get a degree anywhere.

The above answer is designed to not increase the record keeping burden on schools. The 85% part is literally what the Department of Education uses and requires, and the 5% part uses information that the NCAA’s GSR already collects.

[footnote] If you have to determine a denominator (i.e., estimate a conditional probability), then you should determine multiple denominators, and your customer better be guaranteed to fit in one of them and better have some way to estimate the probability of ending up to fit in that one.

 

[crablegs1]

Generally, the denominator is not something you determine! [footnote]

To answer your question directly, I would have a school announce to parents: of our cohort of scholarship students admitted 6 years ago, 85% graduated from our university and 5% left while academically ineligible to play sports. The remaining 10% left our university while academically eligible to play sports, but we don’t have the count of how many of them transferred and graduated elsewhere versus did not yet get a degree anywhere.

The above answer is designed to not increase the record keeping burden on schools. The 85% part is literally what the Department of Education uses and requires, and the 5% part uses information that the NCAA’s GSR already collects.

[footnote] If you have to determine a denominator (i.e., estimate a conditional probability), then you should determine multiple denominators, and your customer better be guaranteed to be in one of them and better have some way to estimate the probability of ending up in that one.

One thing we can agree on is the usefulness of this statistic. I do not think it is useful for a student and/or parent determining a choice of school.

However, I do not think it would be a useful statistic even if the denominator were an “all-in” denominator as you suggest.

I’m reality, having to report this statistic at all shows the absurdity of the NCAA with their sham focus on “amateurism” and the “student-athlete”. They need to attempt to show that they care about academic performance, but at the same time recognize these are college kids who leave schools for a variety of reasons that may or may not reflect on the school/team.

So I guess my point on this is that the statistic is meaningless regardless of how you calculate it, so who cares, and at the same time the NCAA requirement and emphasis on this is a joke.

 

[RoarLions1]

I appreciate anyone that wants to dig into and understand a metric or measurement. Having a candid conversation otherwise is worthless because the other party knows-not-of-what-they speak. That said, I too have been following the GSR metric for decades, and am dangerously knowledgeable.

A perfect tool won't ever exist, as it will end up too complicated. KISS (keep it simple, silly) is preferable for line-of-sight and ease of understanding. Imo, we have that with the GSR … so at least we can compare;
1) Sport-by-sport improvement or lack of within a university (Men's Wrestling at PSU, for example)
2) Comparison against the national average, by sport within a university as compared to the NCAA average for that sport
3) We can do the same, by conference, by entire university (the article above in OP), by Division, etc., etc.

It's not that it's a totally worthless measure, or gnats-eyelash accurate … but it is a good, solid, somewhat-easy-to-understand measurement.

I personally feel good about where PSU Wrestling is, academics-wise;
Here's past GSR's:
1998 - 71%
1999 - 64
2000 - 80
2001 - 82
2002 - 82
2003 - 91
2004 - 85
2005 - 90
2006 - 87
2007 - 73
2008 - 77
2009 - 70
2010 - 86
2011 - 100
2012 - 100

 

[NoVa Lion]

I appreciate anyone that wants to dig into and understand a metric or measurement. Having a candid conversation otherwise is worthless because the other party knows-not-of-what-they speak. That said, I too have been following the GSR metric for decades, and am dangerously knowledgeable.

A perfect tool won't ever exist, as it will end up too complicated. KISS (keep it simple, silly) is preferable for line-of-sight and ease of understanding. Imo, we have that with the GSR … so at least we can compare;
1) Sport-by-sport improvement or lack of within a university (Men's Wrestling at PSU, for example)
2) Comparison against the national average, by sport within a university as compared to the NCAA average for that sport
3) We can do the same, by conference, by entire university (the article above in OP), by Division, etc., etc.

It's not that it's a totally worthless measure, or gnats-eyelash accurate … but it is a good, solid, somewhat-easy-to-understand measurement.

I personally feel good about where PSU Wrestling is, academics-wise;
Here's past GSR's:
1998 - 71%
1999 - 64
2000 - 80
2001 - 82
2002 - 82
2003 - 91
2004 - 85
2005 - 90
2006 - 87
2007 - 73
2008 - 77
2009 - 70
2010 - 86
2011 - 100
2012 - 100

That is not quite what KISS stands for but you get a pass from me.

 

[RoarLions1]

That is not quite what KISS stands for but you get a pass from me.

Haha … I know what it CAN stand for, couldn't get the ol' fingers to type it.

 

[NothingMeaningful]

Not even a close comparison. An equal comparison would be the planes on time arrival percentage. It’s not the starting point, but the destination and enjoyment of the journey along the way. Congrats to the team. 100% graduation for second year in a row while maintaining the highest sports standards as well.

They call it "commencement" for a reason.

 

[CropDuster507]

Great, now not only are they god-fearing, honest, good-hearted people... But they're booksmart nerds, too?

One true heel. That's all I ask.

 

[Dogwelder]

Great, now not only are they god-fearing, honest, good-hearted people... But they're booksmart nerds, too?

One true heel. That's all I ask.

Three. It would be cool to have three Hansen Brothers at the end of the bench!

 

[RoarLions1]

Great, now not only are they god-fearing, honest, good-hearted people... But they're booksmart nerds, too?

One true heel. That's all I ask.

Fan or wrestler? Just asking.