The International Schools Review Forum

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Being an Ivy league institution doesnt make the research better or the data
> stronger, but no those studies dont.

All the other (non-Ivy) research is also pretty much 50/50 on the matter.


> Fairs will continue as long as leaders want them, the reasons are
> immaterial and irrelevant.

That's what I said. We agree. Hurray!

@Heliotrope

No, its not. Not all research is created equal. The strong research has a very clear interviews are worthless conclusion. The studies that show validity are either very weak studies or flawed.

No, its what I wrote first in the 7th post in this topic.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> No, its not. Not all research is created equal. The strong research has a
> very clear interviews are worthless conclusion. The studies that show
> validity are either very weak studies or flawed.

There is good and bad research supporting both positions.
We disagree then.


> No, its what I wrote first in the 7th post in this topic.

Yes, and I then agreed that "fairs will still happen in the future because recruiters believe the in-person experience gives them a better sense of the candidate". So: "That's what I said. We agree. Hurray!"
You're the one who then brought up the research.

@Heliotrope

No there isnt. The strong research has a very clear interviews are worthless conclusion. The studies that show validity are either very weak studies or flawed.

Prior to that I disagreed, that fairs will continue as long as leaders and recruiters want them because they enjoy the fair and the dynamics they benefit from, not because they get better data about fit.

We disagree.

PsyGuy wrote:
> No there isnt. The strong research has a very clear interviews are
> worthless conclusion. The studies that show validity are either very weak
> studies or flawed.

You're of course welcome to believe that. I don't.


> Prior to that I disagreed, that fairs will continue as long as leaders and
> recruiters want them because they enjoy the fair and the dynamics they
> benefit from, not because they get better data about fit.

You're of course welcome to believe that. I don't.


> We disagree.

You're of course welcome to believe that. I do too.

@Heliotrope

its not a belief structure it data, but youre welcome to believe the data doesnt matter. Lots of antivaxers believe that vaccines are some government plot.
Something that @Heliotrope doesnt believes ~meh~

I just believe the data says something else.
Although I suspect on vaccines we do agree.

@Heliotrope

Data doesnt have an opinion. The interpretation of @Heliotrope isnt a property of the data.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Data doesnt have an opinion. The interpretation of @Heliotrope isnt a
> property of the data.

I'm saying the data doesn't support your opinion.
You say it does.
We disagree.