| Subject: Re: Thoughts on the new system |
Author:
Harriet
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:40:15 05/22/03 Thu
In reply to:
Robin
's message, "Re: Thoughts on the new system" on 19:21:52 05/22/03 Thu
Good Points Robin!
Sorry,... I was just trying to outline the problems I saw with the new system as the discussion moved to installing it for next year and I believe it has just as many faults as the current one. I certainly do agree that the heats can make a difference.....then again, it's unlikely that the heats would be as extreme as you say!. Then again, my example was an extreme one too!
Also, because there are already so many hard criteria to meet, as you say, to make yourself eligible for Blues awards, everything counts and the outcome of Varsity could be important to you (especially for men where only 2 out of a possible 4 eligible men can actually receive one at Oxford). You may feel that the 'contribution to Oxford awards' don't reflect your true ability.
>It's very difficult to say from these results if
>someone is "more better" at one than the other couple
>is at the other discipline, especially if you base it
>on the performance of other people in between.
As you say, the performance of people in between really does affect the new system's results, which introduces a new problem to take the place of the problem before of which heat you're in affecting our outcome.
So I agree with Robin, I don't think either system is perfect. Both have flaws. But in reference to installing it next year, my opinion is that I don't think it's a good idea as it doesn solve the problem, it introduces new factors and certainly doesn't provide a prize to be called 'best overall'. And of course, the current one doesn't not necessarily either,
I hope that sounds fair
Harriet xx
>>I agree...If you had a third heat against the other
>>heat from your own university then the differences
>>within your own team would be taken into
>>consideration...but then the system would be a mixture
>>of 'contribution to your team' and placings within
>>your own team....are they compatible? and how much
>>would they count? If they were to be to split up
>>couples that had the same number of points (i.e. those
>>who come 1st and 2nd in a discipline, both having
>>beaten all couples from the opposite team) then I can
>>understand it's use.
>>
>>But what happens here..(sorry another little example)
>>
>>There are two Oxford couples A and B
>>
>>In Ballroom, A comes 1st, a Cambridge couple comes
>>second, B comes third (the order after that is
>>irrelvant)
>>
>>In latin, B comes 1st, then all the other Oxford
>>couples come 2 to 7 and A comes 8th (i.e. the last
>>Oxford couple. The 8 Cambridge couples then follow.
>>
>>A has beaten one more Cambridge couple than B, and so
>>would win 'Contribution to Oxford prize. However, A's
>>placings were 1st and 8th, whilst B's were 1st and
>3rd.
>>
>>Who's the better couple at dancing? I would
>>definitely say couple B, 1st and 3rd indicates that
>>they are more talented at dancing than couple A who
>>came 1st and 8th, but under the new system, couple A
>>would win the prize. Is that really fair? Seeing as
>
>You can't say from this that couple B is better at
>dancing, merely that A is better at ballroom and B
>better at latin. The fact that there are 6 Oxford
>couples between them in latin but only one Cambridge
>couple in ballroom could be due to many different
>things.
>
>It's very difficult to say from these results if
>someone is "more better" at one than the other couple
>is at the other discipline, especially if you base it
>on the performance of other people in between. In your
>example, couple A might be fantastic ballroom dancers,
>much better than couple B.
>
>Or maybe couple A was in a heat with the 3 strongest
>Oxford latin dancers, who took lots of marks of him,
>whereas the ones in couple Bs heat were all a bit
>crap...
>
>The one merit of the "new" system is that at least all
>couples in one team are compared to the same
>opponents. This is at the cost of discarding some
>information. In the end, none of them is suitable to
>see who is the better dancer overall, and as far as
>"blues" are concerned, it's only a minimum
>requirement, quite possibly the easiest one of the lot
>(compared to coming top 3 at IVDA and doing similarly
>well all year for example). I think either system has
>its merits, and is acceptable.
>
>Robin
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
