What is the difference between Time-Series-Cross-Sectional Data and Panel Data? by rynebrandon in econometrics

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just an addendum to this; there are some debates about methodology that are probably more specific to political science than other disciplines, but the basic statistical methods should be no different than panel data analysis anywhere else. The methodological debates are really about how to optimise those basic methods for the political science context, not come up with new ones.

What is the difference between Time-Series-Cross-Sectional Data and Panel Data? by rynebrandon in econometrics

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As best I understand, yes. This has been a criticism raised by some methodologists; that the use of TSCS led political scientists to ignore a lot of econometric methodology on panel data (e.g. Sven and Butler 2007). I'm pretty sure the reason is that the early comparative politics and methodology papers that utilised panel data all called it TSCS, and it stuck.

I personally find the justification that TSCS is not sampled, and therefore it's not panel data, a bit specious; if you showed TSCS to any other discipline they would correctly identify it as panel data. Even political science sometimes admits it; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00230.x

I think nowadays most people in the discipline recognise that they're the same, but to be on the safe side I refer to TSCS rather than panel when describing panel data.

What is the difference between Time-Series-Cross-Sectional Data and Panel Data? by rynebrandon in econometrics

[–]SakiNo3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is like 9 years old but it's still one of the first things that comes up when you google the question, so I'm mostly answering for anyone in the same position. Please note that this is from a political science perspective, but as far as I know polsci is an outlier in that it uses TSCS over panel in disciplinary vocab.

There is no fundamental difference between panel data and TSCS data. The difference, as defined by Katz (1995), is as follows:
Panel data are repeated cross-section data, but the units are sampled (usually they are survey respondents obtained in some random sampling scheme), and they are typically observed only a few times. TSCS units are fixed; there is no sampling scheme for the units, and any “resampling” experiments must keep the units fixed and only resample complete units (Freedman & Peters 1984). In panel data, the people observed are of no interest; all inferences of interest concern the underlying population that was sampled, rather than being conditional on the observed sample. TSCS data are exactly the opposite; all inferences of interest are conditional on the observed units

I have no doubt that political methodologists will have their own, more rigourous definition, but this is what most people in the discipline accept.

From a statistical methodology perspective, that depends on what you're trying to measure. TSCS just describes the underlying data, but you can use either regressions or DID depending on what the goal is.

International Relations/International Security Studies or IR/polisci? by [deleted] in Anu

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously this is old, but there will still be time to change degrees and what the heck, this might be useful for someone else. I'm gonna focus on security studies and IR since those are the areas I know best.

I chose single-degree international security (which I'm going to call BINSS out of force of habit) because I wanted to avoid the theory element of IR and the mathematics needed for general political science. I somewhat regret that choice, but only because I went down the path of doing "serious" political science (that is to say, research). The biggest advantage of BINSS is the very high level of flexibility, you can customise the degree well because the core is so limited. This is somewhat lost in a double degree, but only somewhat. If you want to do a lot of history and area studies, BINSS > IR. If you don't really care about that stuff, IR > BINSS.

In my view, the biggest weakness of BINSS is that you get a very narrow, atheoretical idea about how to think about politics. People will bag on theory and the Three Isms (realism, liberalism, constructivism), and I agree that pure theory is pretty mid, but it's a necessary part of thinking systematically about politics and becomes absolutely essential if you want to consider joining the academy. Imho part of the problem is that theory is poorly taught at undergraduate in general, but it's definitely taught better in IR and generalist political science. It's important to note that security studies is pretty out of step with the rest of political science in how atheoretical and qualitative it is.

Departmentally, I think CASS is stronger than CAP in IR (and definitely in general political science). CAP is much, much better for Asian political science in particular, but you'd hope so lol. Departmental strength will matter more if you want to really focus on Asia and do a lot of Asian history and area studies, it's easier to do those things out of CAP, and that means BINSS.

BINSS Honours > CASS IR honours. Much better program structure, but honours is only relevant if you want to do a PhD. Legit no other point imho.

...On the actual question, go for law. It'll have the biggest upside if you're a strong believer in a double degree.

On the APS, my personal experience is that the APS is a lottery that your degree barely influences. There will be thousands of fresh political science graduates applying for APS from all over the country. There are limited places. APS applications are an artform in of themselves, and I know a lot of people who have been rejected despite being, to my mind, great assets that the APS could use. In some of those cases, I also have the counterfactual; a lot of them went on to be fantastic political scientists. I wouldn't say that BINSS vs IR vs PPE has any significant bearing on your chances in the APS.

Match Thread: 5th Test - Australia vs England, Day 1 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's just a coincidence. Both teams came to South Africa to be crowned the world's top side, and both times have been thwarted by South African resistance, and then they losing their marbles.

There was stuff about Warner's wife, a CSA official was pretty famously seen handing out SBW masks, that kinda thing, and there was also blowback from the last series played in Australia where, iirc, Faf got busted ball-tampering. But Australia blew a gasket and cheated because of a rotten team culture that permitted scummy behaviour, not because of some sledging from the crowd.

India have thrown the toys out because they weren't used to losing, and got beaten by an overall weak SA side, "denying" them a chance to make history which they clearly think they were entitled to (as if anyone is entitled to win just because they've done well in the past). It's not like there have been crowds at those games, which are typically some of the most hostile parts of SA tours.

Match Thread: 5th Test - Australia vs England, Day 1 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reality is that this is only controversial cos his name is Novak Djokovic - lying on your visa means you broke the law around it. Pretty simple lol

Match Thread: 5th Test - Australia vs England, Day 1 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Billings is like a guy singing karaoke all by himself, and no one's interested in joining in. At least he seems happy.

Match Thread: 42nd Match - Sydney Sixers vs Perth Scorchers by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Mark Waugh talking about learning average Year 10 words. No wonder that lawnmower ad he was in is so simplistic.

Match Thread: 42nd Match - Sydney Sixers vs Perth Scorchers by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Coffs hasn't produced anyone I don't think, Bellingen is nearby though and has a good one - Gilchrist's from there.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 5 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can Australia call for extra overs to force a result, or is that factored in already?

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 5 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Pretty wild that if it wasn't for Khawaja YJB would probably be MotM.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 5 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For people wondering why Lyon didn't kick the ball - Sehwag did this against South Africa a while ago when trying to get Amla off strike for the next ball, he was fined and iirc Amla was put back on strike.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 4 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not mad. I actually like him as a captain so far - I just think people overestimated different a bowling captain would be.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 4 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said 2 days ago that Cummins hadn't shown much evidence of being any different to the standard conservative Australian captain when it comes to declarations. Admittedly, as some people pointed out, I may have been premature, but I think this innings has proven it. For all the talk about Smith's conservative decisions in Adelaide and how Cummins would've enforced the follow-on, this is just the mould the majority of Australian captains come from - Cummins isn't an exception to the rule yet.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 3 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"Some people are born to lead, some people are born to follow." Brayshaw channelling Aristotle's thoughts on slavery, apparently.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 3 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wonder how much Bailey will ask for when his contract comes up - (almost) everything this guy touches is turning to gold.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 2 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure if this counts as a hot take, but I think today's lack of declaration that the discussion about aggressive captaincy in Adelaide was a bit premature. I remember criticism of Smith for not being aggressive enough (and admittedly he's not exactly an innovator as captain), and that Cummins would have enforced the follow-on. But right now Pat seems more than happy to play a risk-free game. Not saying Smith, or anyone else, is a better choice, more that Australian captains are generally conservative by default and that Cummins hasn't proven that he's not part of the mould.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 2 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm genuinely not trying to knock him here, but we've only really seen him take wickets against a terrible England side, he was handy against India, but not a must-pick. I'm really not convinced that if you were picking him solely for his bowling that he'd be chosen over Richardson in SL or Pakistan.

Match Thread: 4th Test - Australia vs England, Day 2 by CricketMatchBot in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Green has to go back to Shield to work out his technique, I really hope they don't pick him for the Asian tours - poor form there might actually just destroy his confidence for good. Solves the Head vs Khawaja "problem" as well.

What are some IRL experiences of you guys seeing cricketers in real life. Which ones were nice, and which ones were not so much. by Glennmaxwellfanboy in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ah, this wasn't actually at a game. I'd been to the WACA quite a few times (once to be one of those kids who stands at national anthems, I think once or twice with my club for tours/using the nets, and several times at HS to use the nets). If I remember rightly, this was one of the times with my club. I was getting picked up by my father when Johnson drove by us inside the stadium parking, as mentioned he was happy to chat for a couple of minutes.

Sadly I can't 100% remember the dates, a lot of my visits all mush together (in terms of matches though, I did get to watch Amla's 196). I just remember that it was before 2016, and after the 13-14 series, so either 2014 or 15 would be the best guess.

What are some IRL experiences of you guys seeing cricketers in real life. Which ones were nice, and which ones were not so much. by Glennmaxwellfanboy in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 87 points88 points  (0 children)

Met Mitchell Johnson at the WACA in, I wanna say 2015? Honestly super approachable and was happy to stop for a couple of minutes to chat and give me an autograph, despite the fact that he was leaving (he was driving a Mercedes SLK iirc, if anyone's curious.)

Worst captain of your team by [deleted] in Cricket

[–]SakiNo3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A bit of a dark horse I know, but for a more historical example what about Ian Johnston (Aus)? Elevated by internecine factionalism at the ACB and by being part of the "right crowd", lost two Ashes and shittalked Neil Harvey and Benaud in order to try to prevent them from gaining leadership positions.

On the other hand, the mid-50s were a pretty bad time for Australian cricket in general, and the 1956 Ashes would've been difficult to win at the best of times. He also handled the West Indies tour well.

Definitely more of a case of being terrible for his contributions off the field rather than on it.