violaswallet
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2019
- 9,234
- 7,510
So I'm an economist who works a bit on policy and household finance. I think everyone identified clear selection bias as well as the confounding variable of scholarships. I also think we all agree hockey is very expensive. What we don't agree on is how useful this statistic is.
First, I think they need to control for location: in my home in the South, everyone want to public school. For my friends in NYC, everyone want private. This determines whether the 40% number is high or low. My prior is that Americans are more likely to attend private school and they are now making up a high portion of elite NHL players, which would confound the results and historical analysis they invoke.
I think a more interesting analysis would address the difference between pre schools:
Without answering these questions, we are left with our initial point: playing hockey is expensive and requires major parent involvement, which is easier for wealthier families on average.
Edited for grammar and spelling
First, I think they need to control for location: in my home in the South, everyone want to public school. For my friends in NYC, everyone want private. This determines whether the 40% number is high or low. My prior is that Americans are more likely to attend private school and they are now making up a high portion of elite NHL players, which would confound the results and historical analysis they invoke.
I think a more interesting analysis would address the difference between pre schools:
- Conditional on say playing some decent level of hockey, do wealthier students do better than less wealthy? I.e. is 40% high relative to the number of players Junior A. The study tries to use a .02% chance of making NHL argument, which is just a bad argument. If the probability of making the NHL is equal ands say 40% of quality junior players, then we would expect this result.
- Are these scholarship students? Suppose they are: Then the private school number is actually a positive social externality for inequality reasons. (i.e. are working class families sending their kids to Andover because of hockey)
- Why do students go these schools? Currently the argument seems to be the answer is that they're wealthy. The other could be the scholarship argument, which is positive if the schools are better. My guess is that these private schools are often more flexible for elite hockey schedules, which is more ambigious.
Without answering these questions, we are left with our initial point: playing hockey is expensive and requires major parent involvement, which is easier for wealthier families on average.
Edited for grammar and spelling
Last edited: