> would not make any significant difference in the chance that a student would have
So a third is not statistically important?
> I don't follow the distinction between market as external environment and college admissions as internal environment. Could you elaborate?
It's a very simple point: fund managers claim to have mastery over a vast, complex external environment. Interview and test prep courses, like any sort of pedagogy, claim to teach and coach candidates towards self-improvement. The latter is self-evidently simply more achievable than the former. And even if you were to claim that SAT prep schools make no substantiative improvement for students, what makes interview prep most analogous to those, as opposed to other forms of tutoring, or even personal fitness training, which do yield greater benefits?
I'm just saying it's a lot easier to teach someone how to be better at something than to beat the market. They are completely different endeavors.
So a third is not statistically important?
> I don't follow the distinction between market as external environment and college admissions as internal environment. Could you elaborate?
It's a very simple point: fund managers claim to have mastery over a vast, complex external environment. Interview and test prep courses, like any sort of pedagogy, claim to teach and coach candidates towards self-improvement. The latter is self-evidently simply more achievable than the former. And even if you were to claim that SAT prep schools make no substantiative improvement for students, what makes interview prep most analogous to those, as opposed to other forms of tutoring, or even personal fitness training, which do yield greater benefits?
I'm just saying it's a lot easier to teach someone how to be better at something than to beat the market. They are completely different endeavors.