{"id":1259,"date":"2008-03-17T20:21:32","date_gmt":"2008-03-18T00:21:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/shermandorn.com\/wordpress\/?p=1259"},"modified":"2010-08-07T23:54:43","modified_gmt":"2010-08-08T03:54:43","slug":"grad-rates-of-the-fanciful-and-research-kind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/?p=1259","title":{"rendered":"Grad rates of the fanciful and research kind"},"content":{"rendered":"

While Erin Dillon<\/a> and Inside Higher Ed<\/a> are creating mash-ups of the NCAA hoops brackets and college graduation rates, I’m working on reframing the CPI<\/a> when I can’t handle fighting fires any more, except this evening I’m working with the 2900 counties in the U.S. with upper-grades enrollments reported for 2001-02 through 2005-06 and regular diplomas reported for 2002-03 through 2004-05 (reported with the 2003-04 through 2005-06 enrollment data, thanks to CCD lag). That omits 249 counties (about 8%), including all of Alabama, Hawaii, New York, and Wisconsin, whose county reporting for the Common Core of Data had a gap for at least one year and variable.<\/p>\n

\"predicted<\/a><\/p>\n

r2<\/sup> = .84 for both the log equation (not shown) and the transformation back to predicted vs. estimated smoothed CPIs. Ignore that incredible outlier in the upper right-hand corner. I’ll hunt down that outlier, remove it, and redo, and it’ll end up almost the same except for a slightly lower r2<\/sup> and a more evenly-distributed graph. Two points here:<\/p>\n