Never say never Carla :) I did the harvard Mt. Everest simulation in class recently. I got assigned a leader position…was hoping to get the medic, photographer or sherpa role, no luck…
The team got surveyed like 4 times during the hour and half expedition and all the questions were about - did the leader do this, that and everything in between 🤦♀️
At the end, the lecturer put on the screen, in a class of like 95 business students, the results of the surveys from 12 teams with graphs 📊.
I got a lot of head turns of shock from the classroom, as my team was the only one to rate the leader role highly. I was just relieved, as I had no idea the results would A. end up shown like that and b. that I would ever be climbing Everest, albeit virtually.
This statue of Horemheb and his wife was really beautiful to see tonight. Just stopped in awe and took in the craftsmanship and their overall presence. The style of the fashionable garments they are wearing, helped to date them back to the 18th dynasty.
Found it really interesting that unlike many other kings, Horemheb was not of royal birth, but was a successful army general under Tutankhamun before he rose to become a pharaoh. https://image.nostr.build/d63bc656dc2ddd8ab8811f0cd3f9da588650cecb025927a8b473e62899351466.jpg
#truth
listening to Rick’s podcasts whenever I can. Just finished his chat with Robert Downey Jr. and he uses Wing Chun to help him with this. He used it for Sherlock 🥋
Oops this link makes you have to sign up for Spotify. Tidal girl here :)
Because I don’t use Spotify, I went through @RickRubin website instead. Here you’ll find some really great interviews:
https://www.tetragrammaton.com/podcasts
Don’t mind the ads as Rick is really creative with them and they are fun to listen to 🎧
yeah…still figuring out this capital gains tax procedure in Australia. Don’t understand it enough. Once I figure it out, will set up my wallet again. But thanks for trying:)
Okay so keeping in mind your sample size is 28, benchmark is 14, average time spent with customers is 9.07, std dev is 1.86, std error is 0.35 which leads to a t-stat of -13.99. The hypothesis could be any of following:
P-value
5% critical value (one-sided upper tail test)
1.HO: m <14 (benchmark)
2.HA: m>14 (benchmark)
3. Test using p-value:
T-stat: remember coefficient-benchmark/ std error which is 9.07-14/0.35 =-13.99
P-value: 1.00
4.Decision rule at 5% significance level: reject null if p<0.05:
a)p-value >0.05 fail to reject
5.Conclusion
There is insufficient evidence at the 5% significance level to conclude that the average time spent per customer is greater than 14 minutes.
P-value
5% critical value (one-sided lower tail test)
1.HO: m >14 (benchmark)
2.HA: m<14 (benchmark)
3. Test using p-value:
T-stat: remember coefficient-benchmark/ std error which is 9.07-14/0.35 =-13.99
P-value: 0.00
4.Decision rule at 5% significance level: reject null if p<0.05:
a)p-value <0.05 reject
5.Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence at the 5% significance level to conclude that the average time spent per customer is less than 14 minutes.
P-value benchmark, any difference or not the same
5% critical value (Two-sided test)
1.HO: m =14 (benchmark)
2.HA: m≠ 14 benchmark)
3. Test using p-value:
T-stat: remember coefficient-benchmark/ std error which is 9.07-14/0.35 =-13.99
P-value: 0.00
4.Decision rule at 5% significance level: reject null if p<0.05:
a)p-value <0.05 reject
5.Conclusion
There is sufficient evidence the average time spent per customer is not at benchmark at 5% significance level.
Confidence Interval benchmark (two-sided test)
1. HO: μ = b (14)
2.HA: μ ≠ b (14)
3. Test using 95% confidence interval:
(8.38, 9.76) lower bound and upper bound.
4. Decision rule: reject if 14 outside of the 95% CI
a) 14 is outside the CI - reject
5. Conclusion
We are 95% confident that the average time spent per customer is not performing at the original benchmark of 14 being the time taken before the training was implemented. Instead, the average time post training is now between 8.38 and 9.76.
Confidence Interval benchmark (two-sided test)
1. HO: μ = b (14)
2.HA: μ ≠ b (14)
3. Test using 99% confidence interval:
(8.16, 9.98) lower bound and upper bound
4. Decision rule: reject if 14 outside of the 99% CI
a) 14 is outside the CI - reject
5. Conclusion
We are 99% confident that the average time spent per customer is not performing at the original benchmark of 14 being the time taken before the training was implemented. Instead, the average time post training is now between 8.16 and 9.98.
Hope this helps tanel :)
I know what you mean tanel. Started the subject data analysis with serious trepidation. But I had so much fun with it. Learned about descriptive statistics, z-scores, hypothesis testing, correlations, and regressions. My favourite topic covered was Quadratic functions - love that all non-linear residuals and outliers are factored into a regression and not just considered errors and left out.
Just sat my final for data analysis :)
good luck with the final tanel. Lesson I learned from my exam - do not spend too much time on multiple choice and small descriptive questions, get to the long form questions as they take time.
Cool. Maybe have your excel cell formulas ready to go where possible too i.e. confidence intervals (90%,95%,99%), significance levels, t-stat and p-value, helps save time :)
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by sophiaw1926 | export