tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post157159814136127111..comments2024-03-26T13:05:52.830-05:00Comments on For What It's Worth: Looking more at the Madigan judicial recommendationsJack Leyhanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-20682434495454581212011-04-19T11:36:03.082-05:002011-04-19T11:36:03.082-05:00Okay, that would explain it. So if 50 percent of ...Okay, that would explain it. So if 50 percent of finalists are chosen, and Madigan scored on 25 of 37...that would be considered a “statistically significant” advantage (barely) but it doesn’t prove that his recommendation is the cause of the selections. There are other possible explanations that the article doesn’t rule out.<br /><br />It would be very revealing to compare the qualifications of the candidates he did and did not recommend. If he’s supporting less qualified candidates, then you’d have a page 1 story. But he may have chosen candidates who are more qualified, and the qualifications are the reason for the selections. No question the guy has made himself an easy target over the years, but the article by itself doesn’t present enough evidence to conclusively prove that his recommendations are a problem.Albertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-55804440407316519742011-04-18T15:29:20.379-05:002011-04-18T15:29:20.379-05:00I believe I can answer your question: There was no...I believe I can answer your question: There was no error by the newspaper and all pools were as large as required by Rule 39. However, some people were finalists more than once. The total <i>number</i> of finalists would be exactly 164 -- assuming that 82 vacancies have been filled over the years examined, but finalists who were disappointed one year, who reapplied later and made the finalists' list again would account for the difference.Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-70441632677092735892011-04-18T12:23:08.644-05:002011-04-18T12:23:08.644-05:00This is a very good point, about the timing of the...This is a very good point, about the timing of the letters. If all 37 of the recommendations came after the finalists had been chosen, then the recommendations appear to have had little or no effect.<br /><br />To me the story here is why the number of finalists for 82 vacancies was, according to the article, "more than 135" rather than exactly 164. Is this an error by the Tribune, or were some of the pools of finalists not as large as they were supposed to be?Albertnoreply@blogger.com