This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This is my take. Even though the defense still has work to do, it was night and day better from Kangas' starts to Patterson's.
Since the trendline is upgrade, become enlightened and make more money, the majority must want to fit the title as well.Whatever you just said is a bunch of bullsh*. Go Kangas!
This was the lineup for the CC series:
No, I'm not saying the same thing as SOH and I'm not trying to show off. It's just the type of nomenclature that is typically used to accurately explain a basic quantitative statistical analysis process. There isn't a need for an experimental control group with the type of quantitative research methodology that I was referring to. What you have done by stating that certain variables (there are several) are not constant is simply restating my point about independents and covariates. Goalie stats are dependent variables in every statistical calculation of this nature. Defensive performance is only one of many combined independent variables and covariates that are inferential. Therefore my point, it's not valid to isolate it as SOH has done.
Actually it is generally not accepted among the scholarly literary community that Disraeli is the source of the above quote. The quote was originally referring to the empirical branding of opinions by "expert witnesses" who were not subject to perjury. It later developed into a phrase that characterized the invalid manipulation of statistics by expert witnesses around the late 19th c. That's something different. As I said, statistics don't lie as long as internal validity is maintained.
If there's a light at the end of the tunnel, I'll be finishing my Ph.D work soon. It's funny you mentioned masters students in that context.
Since when did you start sharing a soggy bagel with Archie Bunker, Brent? By the way, if you're looking for a sweep again I hope you're not thinking about posting this weekend? Lurking is permitted up to the last minute of play like last weekend. Write it down.
I suggest you get a second opinion because you received some bad information. I work with academic advisors all the time. Generally speaking, academic committee members are typically chosen by the candidate and are committed to help, not to psychologically intimidate the candidate. The general exam has two goals: 1) to establish that the candidate has a substantive understanding of the research and 2) to formulate the plan for the completion and defense of a doctoral thesis. I was responding to the incorrect reference you cited and providing the original context and meaning which to reiterate does not have anything to do with my original point. You apparently still don't get it. If you want to discuss the misapplication of statistics in my view both posters were actually incorrect.