Hip And Knee Ops Face Axe To Help Save £6M - Nhs Sheffield

[Tiger Woods?]

Nope - when I conducted these interviews I'd allow 10% either side off the target just sat there using your brain: a 50% spread is poor particularly with the use of the Internet. Your incorrect assumption that each admission is a different individual lost you the job several posts ago... although maybe apply to AT Kearney just in case.

Sigh. Wasn't my initial assumption. Look at the figures I used. I did allow for readmissions with the 1/4 figure. The number of admissions averages out to about 1 per 3 people in the population, but nevermind. The way I arrived at 1 in 4 was to look at the number of people over 60 who were admitted more than once in a given year and compared that that to the number of admissions of people over 60 and approximated and added a bit more (i.e. came up with a readmission figure of 30%), then applied that across the entire population as a conservative estimate. To get to a figure as low as 1/6 in the more spelt out analysis I had to assume 100% readmission. This was to satisfy your concerns of under estimating readmissions, not based on the figures I used the first time around. None of the people I know who have been in hospital over the past 5 years have been readmitted for the same issue in a given year. (Correction: I just remembered one who had to have a bad D&C cleaned up.)

What do you think the figures are? 1/4, 1/6, 1/8? Any of those figures would have supported my point. To go lower than 1/4 you have to start believing in what appear to me, as a non-medic, very high readmission figures. So far all you have done is argue by incredulity. If you have better source of figures or can explain why 1/4 is completely out of the ball park, then I am all ears/eyes. Any argument has to be either based on "admissions" not being what they appear to be, or a very high rate of readmission.

This analysis is a bit out too, but it makes another exciting top down white board exercise to see why it isn't unexpected that non-selective public (state) schools don't send many to med / law school.

Take med schools for instance. There's only one in NSW that takes undergrads (UNSW), so postgrad entry is not dependent on school performance on the whole. UNSW median UAI / ATAR intake never less than 99.6. Those on the lower end of this curve tend to be rural / regional / aborigonal who tend to be non-selective educated (not a lot of selective schools in Mudgee).

Well, when I was going through the system, the entrance to UG med in Qld would have been the equivalent of a 99.0 or thereabouts. There were about 210 places, and about 400 people got 99.0. In the 5 years I was at my non-selective state school, there was always at least one year 12 student out of 200 who received a 990 - usually at least 2 or 3. In my year there were 9. Given that not all students completed yr 12 then, we were probably batting just under the 3 or 4 one would expect if you averaged things out i.e. it was a non-selective state school in an area with no selective schools that was performing about as expected relative to the population, i.e. it was not failing.

I don't see how your analysis is relevant. The selective schools are taking a slice of the brighter kids. That means the state schools have a lower average quality of student. The issue is whether they are able to take a student who would have gained a place in ug medicine if the counterfactual was true that that student had attended a selective school and give them a not too dissimilar chance of entering med school. This was basically the case for the on-selective school I attended in the 1980s. Recall, my statement was that if a state school cannot get a bright kid into med/law, then it is failing. Not that they should get the same percentage as a selective school, as the population in a selective school will, by definition, be skewed. Selective schools in Queensland in the 1980s did drag up students marks, but on average not by a huge amount when titrated by later university results.

My concern is though, that the proliferation of private and selective schools in my local area has had the side effect of reducing the quality of the education in the non-selective schools (due to critical mass of ferals) to such a level that the above definition of "not failing" is not true.

[aa3]

Seems sort of insane that the national government only gets to give the money.. but local managers get to decide how to spend it completely independent of the national government?

[aussieboy]

Tiger, you have a very bad dose of Oxforditis that makes it very difficult for those who try to engage with you in a discussion not to come down with rhetorical device poisoning.

The 1 in 4 discussion is becoming a jelly to the wall experience where, for instance, a mental arithmetic rounding out (in the 3.23 post) is revisited retrospectively as being an adjustment for something else entirely.

The public school discussion is going the same way.

Sigh and rolls eyes indeed.