ealized results in a small sample size. That the teacher's distribution used actual numbers, with the occasional spikes. I took from the title text, the tendency of students, or anyone with pre-conceived notions, to keep redoing the test until they get the results they expect, in this case, the textbook result. 188.8.131.52 13:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the piece of paper he's trying to pull out from beneath the Students' T-distribution? 184.108.40.206 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think he he trying to pull the paper from out beneath the t-distribution. I think he is placing the distribution on top of the paper to see if the data on the paper matches the distribution. In panel 2, he looks at the paper and decides that, no, it doesn't, so then opts to use another distribution - the Teacher's t-distribution and see if that works. The comic may be hinting that the t-distribution in grading, etc (since students and teachers are explicitly listed) is flawed. --Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I may be over-simplifying it, but the 'Teachers' T looks like a reference to the 'double-hump programmer' idea, converted into a T-distribution. The other ideas cover the general principle, but this looks like a specific example as well. 220.127.116.11 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the explanation really explains what a T-distribution is at all. I know it's googleable, but the point of an explanation is you shouldn't have to look it up afterwards. I don't like how lately all of the scientific/maths comics seem to be given explanations laden with technical terms that don't actually clarify anything. --Mynotoar (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I did a quick calculation using mspaint, and it appears that the Student's t-distribution in the first panel is roughly 5780 px^2 in size; at the same time the area of the "Teacher's t-distribution" in the last panel is approximately 8125 px^2 (or 140% of the Student's distribution). Thus, using the Teacher's t-distribution as Cueball is intent on doing "is both illegal and illegitimate" (illegitimate = no scientific basis for such a distribution; illegal = this it not even a distribution per se). If Cueball goes on and publishes his results based on such approach, they will not be recognized by the international scientific community (except perhaps by Russia, Syria and North Korea). We, readers, therefore express our deep concern over Cueball's methods. Stpasha (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe the joke has to do with "fitting data to a distribution": In the first panel, Cueball is trying to adjust the Student's T distribution on top of the data, which could be a play on "fitting" the data to the distribution. Statistically speaking, fitting data to a distribution is often done to figure out how likely the data were to have occurred, under the assumption that the underlying data generating process follows a particular distribution (like the Student's T). It looks like Cueball first tries to fit his data to a Student's T, and is dissatisfied with the fit. He then tries a much more complicated distribution - which, I think is jokingly called a Teacher's distribution on the premise that something to do with teachers is more complicated than something to do with students. The joke is that data often don't fit a simple distribution like the Student's T... they are nuanced and complex, and their underlying data generating process was far more complex. Amoorthy (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, this is related to and compatible with the explanation given by Dangerkeith3000 above.Amoorthy (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The title test could be referring to the tests aspiring teachers have to take in the US to get their credentials. It's sort of like a Bar- except you may take it as many times as you wish until you pass. 18.104.22.168 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I thought it referred to the practice that some US school systems have of allowing students to take a test (examination) repeatedly until they pass it. 22.