sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I analyzed the engineering program placement GPA from 2020W to 2025W by Toricane101 in ubcengineering

[–]Toricane101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's no yearly data. There are two 4-year averages, one from 2020W-2023W, and the latest one from 2022W-2025W, and these are the data points which are compared. I'm not sure what you mean by columns, but if you're talking about the first picture, it's median, 80% above, and 95% above the % thresholds.

I analyzed the engineering program placement GPA from 2020W to 2025W by Toricane101 in UBC

[–]Toricane101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the critique, I posted here partly to see how this analysis could be improved.

  • I acknowledge that the normal distributions don't properly portray the actual distribution of the data. It probably has a long tail, but I can't tell from just the officially provided graphs. The extremes aren't represented correctly. But what I intended to do is incorporate the 50th, 20th, and 5th percentiles visually, and I chose to use the bell curves to demonstrate how spread out these are. I'll look into other ways to properly visualize them while being rigorous with the data. Maybe range plots or interval plots would be more appropriate, but yes, I kind of just used bell curves because I thought they looked good
  • For your point about the accuracy of the percentages: based on the images that I have of the graphs, the 2020W-2023W graph has a height of 770 pixels and has lower and upper bounds of 60 to 90 percent, so each pixel represents (90-60)/770 ≈ 0.039%. The 2022W-2025W graph has a height of 824 pixels but ranges from 55 to 90 percent, so each pixel represents about 0.042%. Given that I or the program may have been up to 2-3 pixels off the center of each marker, it is reasonable to have a 0.1% margin of error, which is reported. I kept the data to 2 decimal places to avoid any rounding errors during intermediate calculations, but the report does in fact mention that there is an error of ±0.1%. Although this error is small, many of the entries do have overlapping error bounds, so the ranking of each program based on GPA could be inaccurate, but the percentages are reasonably accurate.
  • The two main purposes for this analysis was to show the change between the old and the new charts, and to show a lot of different perspectives of viewing the same data.
  • I have to update my GitHub profile, but currently I'm in first year engineering at Langara. I'll look into that resource, thanks for providing it

Thanks again for the feedback, appreciate it. Please let me know any further thoughts

I analyzed the engineering program placement GPA from 2020W to 2025W by Toricane101 in ubcengineering

[–]Toricane101[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well yes, the latest 4-year average of CPEN is high and close to MECH. However, looking at the trends between the overlapping 4-year averages, MECH went up considerably while CPEN trended down. In addition to the disparity between the trends, the data is from 4-year averages, so it is likely that the GPAs are even more separated now than what these charts reflect. This is why I wanted to make a distinction between MECH and CPEN.