I do not understand you at all, you comment can be read as a fairly common statement around here: education for rich kids is not always a good thing. While the article is about how families that have time to value their young are much more likely to educate them. How can you compare these two outliers?
You completely missed the point. OP is impugning the validity of one conclusion of the study - the claim "three times as likely to go to college". Such an outsized effect is only possible if we moved from an extremely minuscule likelihood to an only moderately minuscule. The claim is dubious when it comes from a sample of 105, a control of 65 and doubly so when the priors aren't mentioned. IE, would we expect .3 people out of 100 in this demographic to go to college?
I'm saying "increase the likelihood of the child going to college by a factor of three" doesn't make a lot of sense as an evaluation of the impact of this intervention, for two reasons:
- It's very easy to increase really small numbers by a factor of three, but this large percentage increase is not particularly meaningful.
- Many demographics go to college at such high rates that it would be impossible to increase those rates by a factor of three. Since it's impossible, the intervention probably can't accomplish it.
