Why do you seem to be taking that personally? I am just curious how following some kids for 1 year and some for 14 years can yield consistent data. As I said, a lot can happen to people in 14 years. In 14 years you can go from 2nd grade to college graduate. Or from 6th grade to being a doctor. I understand that it would be difficult to follow all the children for the same period of time, but it just seems like a pretty wide disparity, especially with children. A lot happens in 14 years with children.
Maybe I am just an idiot, but I cannot seem to find anything at the link you post even linking to the study you mentioned. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > > Its still legitimate. The longitudinal sampling techniques took such > into account. Go to the site and look at how they do that sort of > research. I'm pretty satisfied with their methodology, as is the > entire field. You need to do your own research about it. I don't see > why I ought to provide freebies when I charge a consulting fee for > doing such. > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 1-14 years? That seems to be a pretty big disparity for some kids >> compared to another. A lot of shit (good and bad) can happen to a >> person in 14 years. How can those numbers even be remotely accurate?. >> >> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> No its simply a fact, not an excuse. For instance take the NORC >>> dataset (see http://www.norc.org/homepage.htm) - this data is the >>> result of a 20 year longitudinal study of all the children in the >>> Chicago region school systems, including urban, suburban and rural >>> systems. The children were followed throughout their school career. In >>> the end over 50,000 children were followed for about 1 to 14 years. >>> Not only was school achievement assess, but socioeconomic status, >>> parental involvement, etc. >>> >>> The shared variance (or r squared value) between race and economic >>> status was over 40%, meaning that the two factors (race and SES) were >>> strongly related. To such an extent that you cannot statistically >>> remove the effect of poverty from ethnicity effects nor can you >>> eliminate the effects of race on effects due to socio-economic status. >>> >>> Similar results are found in the census data and in other very large >>> datasets. Its not saying that one group is better than the other, its >>> saying that this strong relationship exists and has to be taken into >>> account in any statistical model you create. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Race and poverty are real close. Real close. Really really close. So close >>>> together that its really really really difficult to remove the effects of >>>> one from the other." >>>> >>>> >>>> One of the most racist ideas I have heard or read. It's that sentiment >>>> that >>>> gives people an excuse for failure. I can't succeed because my skin color >>>> is [fill in the blank]. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> J >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that >>>> because >>>> he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of >>>> his own merits or efforts. - Booker T. Washington >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323326 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
