It's not hard to be in the median yet one of the worst states, if NY/CA/FL/TX all have shit scores (I have no idea if that's the case). You could conceivably be at the median while being one of the worst 5 or 10 states.

▲

Tyr42 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Median means that half the states are worse than you. Unless there are ties, it's impossible to be the median and the 10th percentile.

Unless I missed something?

	▲	mothballed 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I was thinking median meant enough population of below states to reach half of populace, are doing worse.

▲

ThrowMeAway1618 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>It's not hard to be in the median yet one of the worst states, if NY/CA/FL/TX all have shit scores (I have no idea if that's the case). You could conceivably be at the median while being one of the worst 5 or 10 states.

I wonder where you went to school. Median means that half of the sample is above and half the sample is below.

To explain (and I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand), the median of the fifty states is that 25 are above the median and 25 are below it. See how that works?

Here's a simpler example in case you're still confused:

Steve makes $5/hour

Bob makes $8/hour

Reggie makes $11/hour

Sylvana makes $14/hour

Benoit makes $17/hour

The median wage is then $11.00/hour. Get it now?

Check out this very complex page[0] (let me know if you need help with the bigger words) that discusses this idea. Good luck. I suspect you're gonna need it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_tendency

▲

mothballed 4 days ago | parent [-]

>I wonder where you went to school. Median means that half of the sample is above and half the sample is below.

Yes I understand that, but the sample unit called out in finding the median explicitly was 'schools' not median 'state.' (And before that, test scores, in which the fundamental unit is a child and not a state).

I was trying to come up with an explanation how CA could be at the bottom while still have schools around the median.

If NY/CA/FL/TX are huge and tight to together, the median school or child could be in one of them even if they were amongst the worst 5 or 10 states. The 'median' as used above was in reference to schools, not states.

I think the key piece you're missing here is each state does not have equal number of schools or children. Therefore if a state's schools are all scoring near the median (of schools) as alleged, and the large states are all doing bad, California could be one of the worst few states while having their schools (and children) near the median. You're getting your units mixed up.

▲

ThrowMeAway1618 4 days ago | parent [-]

>California schools generally score right at or just below the median for the entire US.

I'm guessing you're referring to the statement above from the comment here[0]. Is that correct?

I read that as "[All] The schools in California [in aggregate] generally score right at or just below the median for [other states' schools in aggregate] for the entire US." Which is as Tyr42 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45191847 ) interpreted it as well.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I don't believe I've ever seen comparisons of individual schools across the US. Ever. It's always comparisons of all the schools in one state as compared with those in another state.

Sure, there are often comparisons within states between school districts or between schools in the same district, but never one-to-one comparisons of a single school in one state vs. all the other schools in the US.

But yes, i can see how you might read it that way. That said, I guess we won't know which GP meant unless they come back and tell us.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45190611

Edit: Clarified comparison examples within within states/between school districts/schools.

▲

bsder 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I read that as "[All] The schools in California [in aggregate] generally score right at or just below the median for [other states' schools in aggregate] for the entire US."

That is how I intended it as, like you, I have never seen anything else.

However, the real comment I was refuting was "This is in California where the test scores are some of the worst in the nation." That statement simply isn't supported by the data.

It is certainly possible that California does have some of the worst individual districts in the nation as it definitely has pockets of incredibly poor socioeconomic areas. However, that does not define "California schools" as an aggregate any more than the fact that California has some of the highest individually performing schools in the country by virtue of demographics as well.

▲

mothballed 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the way you read it is the more likely way to read it. But the way I read it for my comment was the way I had to read it to come up with California coming at the bottom while having schools all scoring near the median of schools. I was trying to come up with a way to read it to make the assertions possibly true.

	▲	ThrowMeAway1618 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		>I think the way you read it is the more likely way to read it. But the way I read it for my comment was the way I had to read it to come up with California coming at the bottom while having schools all scoring near the median of schools. I was trying to come up with a way to read it to make the assertions possibly true. Yep. Your comment here[0] made that clear. I completely misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I think there may be some confusion about where various states sit WRT schools. School rankings from the World Population review[1] as compared with state test scores[2] of various types and ages, as well as US News and World Report's State school rankings[3], all of which tell a different, if similar, story. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45196647 [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho... [2] https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=... [3] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education