The Sabermetrics of University Admissions: Ignore factors that don't predict success

Stephen Kershnar

The Sabermetrics of University Admissions

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

February 5, 2018

            Many college applicants are awaiting decisions. They went through the process of getting recommendations, taking standardized tests, writing essays, doing volunteer work, filling out applications, being interviewed, and so on. The sloppy way in which student are admitted for these schools is at odds with the use of statistics elsewhere.  

Consider the use of statistics in Major League Baseball (sabermetrics). This is standard operating procedure in how baseball teams select players, decide what to pay them, and so on. The same is true for the National Football League. The New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles, for example, use statistical methods in deciding whom to draft or trade and how much to pay players. In addition, they use statistics in deciding which plays to run. Ditto for NBA teams.

The same is not done for medical school admissions, at least not to the same degree. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, medical school admissions committees holistically evaluate applicants. Holistic evaluation considers applicants as individuals. It involves looking at applicants’ diversity, life experiences, and personality in part through essays and interviews as well as looking at more traditional academic indicators such as grade point average (GPA) and standardized test score.

Committees usually consider applicants’ charitable work, performance in unstructured interviews, physician shadowing, race and ethnicity, recommendations, and undergraduate major. The different factors are then matched to the admission committee’s view of its community, school, and medicine in general.

These non-academic factors (consider, for example, physician shadowing) have not been validated. They either don’t predict performance or are not known to predict it. In addition, they water down consideration of factors that do predict performance and, in fact, do so reasonably well.   

A number of studies have found that the combination of medical college admissions test (MCAT) and undergraduate grade point average (GPA) is the best predictor of success in medical school. MCAT scores also correlate with medical board scores. The way to choose applicants who will be the best doctors is to rely on these factors. This is particularly true if these factors are combined with a personality test, such as one that looks for statistically validated personality features such as grit or conscientiousness.

The MCAT’s predictive power is similar to that of other standardized tests. Test scores predict undergraduate and graduate student performance reasonably well. They also predict job performance at a range of jobs. Even when restricted to gifted students, the SAT still predicts who will perform better. Standardized test scores even predict who will be a better professor.  

The predictive power of standardized tests is unsurprising. Standardized test scores (such as the SAT) correlate with IQ and IQ is a reasonably strong predictor of job performance. IQ predicts job performance better than do other measures such as interests, personality, reference checks, and interview performance. The more complex the job, the better it predicts performance.

Medical schools should only consider standardized test score, GPA, and, perhaps, a couple of other validated factors such as personality-test score and structured-interview score. The same is true for universities admitting undergraduates, especially elite universities.

A defense of the holistic admissions system for medical school is that it predicts which physicians have better bedside manners, care more, or are more likely to serve poor or rural people. One problem with this defense is that there is no reason to think that admissions committees can outperform validated tests for desired personality features. If personality features are important (consider, for example, emotional intelligence), they should be tested for in the best available way.

A second problem is the lack of evidence that committees can predict these features. For example, I can’t find any evidence that admissions staffers can predict bedside manner from a half-hour interview. A third problem is that an argument is needed as to why these factors are more important than ability. Physician shortage and medical error are costly. Medical error is one of the leading causes of death. Choosing a student whose demographics or numbers suggest she will work fewer hours or will be a less capable physician than her replacement is similar to replacing a second-round draft pick in the NFL with a sixth-round pick. It is unclear why a gain in bedside manner or caring is more important than greater ability.

A second argument for holistic admissions is that diversity is important and holism is a better way to achieve diversity than a purely statistical system. A problem with this objection is that if diversity is worth doing, then it is worth doing with formal weighting. By analogy, if a NFL team is required to hire Jewish players, it would make sense for the team to use the same statistics-based ranking that it uses to rank other players. This way a team might have to substitute a third-round draft pick for a first-round pick, but avoids substituting a seventh-round player for a first round pick.

In addition, if diversity-related cost (less merit per doctor and fewer doctors) outweighs the diversity-related benefit (for example, role models and stereotype elimination), then it fails a cost-benefit analysis. We have a general idea how markets view diversity. Competitive markets do not value it much if at all. Consider, for example, Hollywood, MLB, NBA, and NFL. In general, markets are better than other methods for weighing costs and benefits. The cost of diversity in medical school is worth considering. It would be helpful to know, for example, how many additional deaths and injuries from physician error will come about for a 1% increase in medical-class diversity and whether the tradeoff is worthwhile.

The case for using a statistics-based admissions system for undergraduate admissions is similar to that for medical school. University admissions should be simple (standardized test score, GPA, and, perhaps, a few other validated factors) and done by a computer. At the very least, it should be done in a way similar to what is done in professional sports.

Lessons from the Vietnam War

Stephen Kershnar

What Have We Learned from the Vietnam War?

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

January 22, 2018

            Many of us recently watched Ken Burns’ outstanding documentary: The Vietnam War. What’s interesting is how little we learned from the war.

            The Vietnam War teaches us that there are three requirements that should be met before the U.S. goes to war. First, the U.S. should fight on the just side. No country may trample on other people’s moral rights regardless of its international goals. Second, the U.S. should go to war only when doing so is in the American people’s interest. The government is the people’s agent and should act on its behalf. Third, the U.S. should go to war only when doing so satisfies the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract between the government and the people and it’s wrong to ignore it no matter how strongly politicians feel about some international cause.

            First, consider whether the Vietnam War was in the U.S. interest. The U.S. lost 58,000 people and spent $800 billion adjusted for inflation. When you add in the value of the 58,000 lives lost (currently valued at, roughly, $9 million per life), the total cost is more than $1 trillion dollars. Even if the U.S. hadn’t lost, it is hard to see how the American people would have benefitted enough by the preservation of a corrupt South Vietnamese government to justify spending that much blood and treasure.

            Did we learn anything from this expenditure? No. According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the second Iraq War cost the U.S. $2 trillion dollars. The Bush II and Obama wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria and drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen added a considerable sum to this expenditure. Bush I’s first Iraq War preceded the spending orgy. According to the Congressional Research Service, it only cost $100 billion. The American people are spending money they don’t have for wars whose costs to them dwarf their benefits. Worse, when the amount of death and destruction are taken into account, it’s not even clear they’re good for the people we’re trying to benefit.  

            Second, consider whether the Vietnam War was Constitutional. The Constitution requires Congress to declare war (Article I Section 8). In the Vietnam War, this wasn’t done. Congress merely passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In not declaring war, Congress followed its pathetic precedent in the Korean War, authorizing war in some sense without declaring it. Making matters worse, the resolution was repealed in 1971 and Richard Nixon continued the war anyway. Congress further muddied Constitutional waters in 1973 by passing the War Powers Resolution that permitted it to authorize war without declaring it. Congress and the courts then followed this retreat by failing to enforce either that resolution or the Declaration of War clause.

            Did we learn anything from this pattern of ignoring the Constitution and statutory law during the Vietnam War? Again, no. As in Korea and Vietnam, U.S. wars in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq (two different wars), Libya, and Syria were all done without Congress declaring war. Congress preferred to shirk its constitutional duties. Congressional cowards didn’t want to go on record because doing so would make them accountable.   

Some of these wars didn’t even satisfy the War Powers Resolution. Even after Congress explicitly refused to authorize air and missile strikes, Clinton bombed Serbian forces anyway. The Obama administration made the ridiculous argument that it didn’t need Congressional authorization to attack the Libyan military with drone strikes and cruise missiles. Other examples include Obama’s unauthorized attacks on ISIS and Syria. Such gross unconstitutionality occurred without the courts stepping in, members of the military living up to their oath and insisting on proper authorization, or the media demanding that the Constitution and statutory law be followed.

The Constitutional problems with the Vietnam War were made worse by conscription. Conscription made it clear that in their rush to engage in wasteful and, in some cases, unconstitutional wars, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson were not going to let American freedom stand in their way. Sadly, their names are not blacked like other historical villains. In 1918, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution permits conscription in one its most embarrassing decisions.

            Did we even learn anything from the lies and lack of integrity displayed by the Presidents and the military leadership during the Vietnam War? No.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was based on lies. The first attack was a North Vietnamese response to aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers by coordinated American, Laotian, and South Vietnamese forces. The second attack likely never occurred. Johnson and the military knew this, but used it to get Congress to authorize war anyway (albeit without declaring it). Both Johnson and Nixon thought the war was unwinnable but kept feeding American boys into the Vietnamese meat grinder. Johnson lied about whether the war was winnable, how much it was expected to cost, and how well it was going. In his 1964 Presidential campaign, he promised not to escalate the war. Nixon told similar lies, scuttled peace talks during the next presidential campaign, and secretly bombed Cambodia.

            Did we learn anything about putting sleazy men in high office? No. The Bushes, Clinton, and Obama are cut from the same cloth as Johnson and Nixon. While less tragic than the Vietnam War, the second Iraq war involved an impressive number of half-truths and lies. It might be that the nature of the American political class makes a lack of integrity, lying, and cover-ups standard operating procedure. Still, this is all the more reason to limit presidential opportunities for starting and continuing wars and to tightly monitor them once they begin.

            It is unclear what we’ve learned from the Vietnam War. The reputation of Lyndon Johnson remains intact. We’ve failed to ensure that American wars are in the people’s interest, legal, and not propelled by a pack of lies. George Santayana said it well, “Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”

Watergate-Level Corruption: Mueller Investigation, Clinton Email Scandal, and Steele Dossier

Stephen Kershnar

High-Profile Investigations Constitute a Watergate-Level Scandal

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

January 9, 2018

            The investigations of the Trump campaign, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation of Russian collusion were and are so incestuous, conflicted, and dirty that they constitute a Watergate-level scandal.

            Consider Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation of alleged Russian collusion. Mueller was appointed after former FBI director James Comey leaked confidential notes about his conversation with President Trump. The leaking is likely a crime, but he’ll get a pass. Comey admitted that he was hoping to appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump whom Comey admitted, under oath, he was not investigating. This makes no sense. Department of Justice officials held over from the Obama administration (swamp creatures) chose Mueller who was Comey’s longtime friend and co-worker. Given that Comey is a potential witness in the case and could be, in effect, an accuser, this conflict of interest stinks.

There are incestuous relations between Mueller’s team, Hillary Clinton’s legal world, and those who investigated her email scandal. The Hoover Institution’s Victor Davis Hanson points out that at least six of Mueller’s staff of fifteen lawyers donated to the Clinton campaign. He reports that the team includes Jeannie Rhee who provided legal services to the Clinton Foundation and who generously donated to the Clinton campaign.

He also notes that it includes Aaron Zebley, who represented the IT staffer who set up Clinton’s server and reportedly smashed Clinton’s cell phones with a hammer to prevent them being searched.

Most spectacularly, the Mueller team included an FBI investigator Peter Strzok who was later thrown off the team reportedly for nasty texts about Trump with another member of the Mueller legal team (Lisa Page) with whom he was having an affair. Strzok was at neck deep these investigations. He was the lead investigator of the Clinton email scandal and helped draft the memo recommending that Clinton not be prosecuted for her server. He deleted language in the memo that said that Clinton was “grossly negligent,” the requirement for the relevant crime. The memo was drafted and Strzok changed it well in advance of interviewing some of the people involved, including Hillary Clinton. Now this is an investigation one can believe in.

Strzok was present in all three investigations. He led the investigation of and interviewed Hillary Clinton about the server (not under oath – a sweetheart deal) and interviewed Trump Administration official Michael Flynn about Russia. Flynn is now being prosecuted what he said in the interview. Strzok made suspicious comments in a text about a plan to save the country were Trump elected. He made these comments in response to what appears to be a meeting with Page and the second in command at the FBI (Andrew McCabe).

Another member of Mueller’s legal team, Andrew Weissman, has a checkered past and there is evidence of his being incredibly biased against Trump.

            A Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, was demoted in part because he concealed meeting with the firm (Fusion GPS) that produced an opposition research document (Steele dossier). It is widely reported that information from the dossier was used to get a FISA court warrant to monitor people in the Trump campaign. This despite the fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for the dossier and that it was quickly discredited. Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPA and, of course, Bruce Ohr failed to disclose this as well.

            The investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email was awash in sweetheart deals, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice. It was overseen by Andrew McCabe, the second in command at the FBI. He did not recuse himself until one week before the presidential election despite the fact that his wife received almost $700,000 from the Clintons’ longtime moneyman Terry McAuliffe (specifically, from his organizations). The investigation involved a refusal to apply the statutory standard (gross negligence), a refusal to prosecute Clinton and company for what others have been prosecuted for (see Kristian Saucier and David Petraeus), immunity deals handed out like candy, looking past destruction of subpoenaed evidence, failure to subpoena relevant parties, and on and on.

            There is also the unmasking scandal whereby the Obama administration monitored members of the incoming Trump administration as part of its attempt to surveil foreign officials. Former national security advisor Susan Rice lied about her requests to have Trump’s people unmasked. The congressman who heads the committee looking into noted that the unmasking had little to no intelligence value. Rice was already famous for repeatedly lying about the Benghazi debacle.

            There are several lessons to be drawn from all of this. First, the FBI and Justice Department are conflicted, unethical, and, at times, dirty. The place needs to be cleaned out like a basement with a rat infestation. Swamp creatures such as Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Strzok, Weissman, and those high level officials who recommended or tolerated their hiring need to have their name blackened and never again allowed to hold a government position. Making things worse, the Justice Department and FBI refuse to hand over documents to Congress regarding the Mueller investigation. 

  

            Second, we should have no confidence in the ability of the government to investigate itself. The failure to prosecute former Presidents (for example, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton), their underlings (for example, Eric Holder and Lois Lerner), and dirty members of Congress (for example, Charley Rangel) is a mistake. This sends the message that government officials are above the law. The shocking decision not to charge Bill Clinton with obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering and spoke volumes. Clinton merely had to pay a fine for contempt of court and surrender his law license.

            Third, this Watergate-level scandal needs to be investigated and evildoers punished. Using a dubious opposition research document to get a FISA warrant (if this occurred), using the warrant to collect information on Trump campaign members, and then using this information to get a special counsel appointed involves naked aggression against political enemies. This cannot be tolerated. We saw earlier instances of this when, under the Clinton and Obama administrations, the IRS was weaponized and the Justice Department looked the other way. The past and holdover Obama administration officials’ actions threaten American democracy. This threat is similar to that posed by the Nixon administration’s lawless behavior.

Unfortunately, between the Congressional sissies and the cowardly Attorney General Jeff Session, this will all be shoved down the memory hole.