there's a threshold that's 0.67 SDs (10 points) above the higher-performing of two groups with equal variances who are separated by 0.97 d.
With simulated group sizes of one million persons each, the mean differences decline, and the SDs do too. The new gap is 0.412 d.
But we know that the 0.97 d gap is an underestimate due to range restriction.
Using MBE scores, it looks like the unrestricted gap should be more like 1.22 d. That leaves us with a 0.537 d gap above the threshold.
Do we have subsequent performance measures?
Yes! We have three:
- Complaints made against attorneys
- Probations
- Disbarments
For men, the gaps, in order, are 0.576, 0.513, and 0.564 d. For women, the gaps are 0.576, 0.286, and 0.286 d.
Men fit expectations and women apparently needed less discipline.
These gaps probably replicate nationally.
For example, here are Texas pass rates from 2004 - a 0.961 d Black-White first-pass gap. The 2006 update to these figures raised the gap to 0.969 d.
Those figures are basically in line with LSAC's national study of Bar exam pass rates.
And those are basically in line with New York's gaps.
And this should probably be expected, since tests measure the same things.
Since all of the people included in these statistics went to ABA-accredited schools, they all had the opportunity to learn what was required to perform well on these tests.
But just like the Step examinations for medical doctors, the gaps on the tests and in real life remain.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pit bull breeders often have Instagram accounts where they post stuff like this, showing the creations they've made through having dogs from the same litter rape each other.
For example, "2x Pimpy 3x Bape" means this one was inbred 2x from a dog named "Pimpy" and 3x from "Bape".
The whole "nanny dog" thing is made up. There is no historical evidence that pit bulls were ever bred to be stewards or friends to children.
The evidence for that myth is basically 'someone said it on Facebook'🧵
Even many sources that are favorable towards pit bulls or active promoters of them will occasionally admit there's no real basis for the "nanny dog" claim.
Example:
Another example (and yes, I know "loyal and loving demeanor" is a lie; this is posted for the admission of myth):
I was randomly attacked for the high crime of being in the pit bull's vicinity.
This dog had been wandering around everyone all night and seemed friendly, until it decided to jump up and bite my face at the end of the night for no apparent reason.
This entire breed needs to be exterminated.
Dogs that randomly lash out should not exist.
I actually didn't realize *just how* insane they were until this happened.
I always assumed there had to be *something* that set them off and the issue was that they're set off too easily.
But I was wrong! They just randomly maul you for no reason.