讀哲學和神學的學生很滿意？

[Daniel_Cheung]

讀哲學和神學的學生很滿意？

Students of philosophy and theology are the most satisfied in higher education, results of an official survey suggest.
They recorded the highest median "overall satisfaction" level: 4.3 out of a maximum possible five points.

History and archaeology, physical science, biology and English-based studies all rated 4.2.

Art and design ranked lowest, 3.7, with media studies, computer science and technology on 3.8, in results leaked to the Times Higher Education Supplement.

．．．

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4226610.stm

[wonggk]

讀哲學和神學的學生很滿意？


I can't find the detail survey or report. But "as is", this is just another classic example of "selection bias" in statistics.

These students did not study all subjects, and then rank them accordingly. Instead, they were just expressing a subjective opinion on their own discipline. It is very likely that Philosophy/Theology students had higher satisfactory score because students selecting this major are already very committed to the field, while students picking more "secular" subjects are less committed. They pick an area just because of career opportunity; family or peer pressure etc.

We see this type of fallacy all the time. A classic case that most of us are familiar with is secondary school banding in HK: that "Band 1" schools are "better" because they have better exam results -- they have better exam results may be only because they get better students, not because they provide a better education.

Going back to this example, a better design is to measure each student's perception of the discipline at the time of matriculation, then measure their satisfaction again at the time of graduation. This design measures the “value-added” of the program, although it still does not completely eliminate the selection bias problem. The programs and backgrounds of the students are just not homogeneous enough for this type of comparison.

May be Alex and Kit will have more to say on this topic.