<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Update: Probabilities now mean something</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/</link>
	<description>Data-driven college admission prediction</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:23:51 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/comment-page-1/#comment-217</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/#comment-217</guid>
		<description>@Barrington: Looking at Fordham, we have very few people who have reported rejections. If those 4 people are representative of the general group of students not admitted, then the model could be right. I agree with you that it could be too optimistic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Barrington: Looking at Fordham, we have very few people who have reported rejections. If those 4 people are representative of the general group of students not admitted, then the model could be right. I agree with you that it could be too optimistic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/comment-page-1/#comment-216</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:05:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/#comment-216</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d have to look at Fordham and see how well its model is working... Dunno, if you&#039;ve got high stats, it could be correct. It would suggest that if you applied 20 times, the model expects you to get in 19 of them. So yeah, that&#039;s a pretty bold statement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have to look at Fordham and see how well its model is working&#8230; Dunno, if you&#8217;ve got high stats, it could be correct. It would suggest that if you applied 20 times, the model expects you to get in 19 of them. So yeah, that&#8217;s a pretty bold statement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barrington</title>
		<link>http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/comment-page-1/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>Barrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mychances.net/blog/2008/09/25/update-probabilities-now-mean-something/#comment-214</guid>
		<description>I had a university (Fordham) go from 50-something to 96%. I&#039;m assuming 96% isn&#039;t entirely right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a university (Fordham) go from 50-something to 96%. I&#8217;m assuming 96% isn&#8217;t entirely right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
