Reply #93: the bank argument is still invalid. Here's a bank analogy that actually

[fishwax]

applies to the situation. An adjustment to your personal checking account simply isn't relevant to the topic of statistical comparison.

But since we're on the subject of banks, imagine an investment banker (we'll call him Winston Private) who last year increased the value of his client's assets by a total of 1 million dollars. The guy at the bank across the street (Joe Public) only increased the value of his client's assets by 500,000. People look at these figures and say: Private is much more successful than Public. Public should be fired. We should stop funding Public. He is failing.

Then somebody does a little research. They find out that Winston Private had ten clients last year. Joe Public had 500 clients . Winston Private's supporters in congress shout: see! Private's client's got an average yield of one hundred thousand dollars. Private's clients averaged a meager one grand! Those are numbers! That's the real world! Why would anybody want to put their money in Public's trust?

But wait, the researcher says, as he furiously punches the keys on his calculater to make a *statistical adjustment*. As it turns out, Private's clients were very wealthy, and he had a total of twenty million dollars at his disposal. Joe Public's clients, on the other hand, come from a broad range of socio-economic classes, and provided a total of five million dollars for investment.

Naturally, Winston Public's supporters start to grumble about "statistical adjustments" and "taking responsibility." But which banker would you trust to manage your kid's college fund?