Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2001 / iii / Paper 28 / 2

The missing output is needed to identify the actual regression formula, response column, transformations and coefficient estimates. A useful possible analysis regresses the maintained-school percentage among acceptances on the corresponding percentage among applications, allowing for year; it must be described as a model of college-level composition, not a direct estimate of individual acceptance probabilities.

For instance, if $a_{jt}$ and $p_{jt}$ are these two percentages, a normal linear model might specify $\mathbb{E}(a_{jt})=\alpha +\beta p_{jt}+\delta 1_{\{t=2000\}}$, with a slope-by-year interaction term if needed. The intercept is the expected response at zero predictor, often an extrapolation; the slope is a percentage-point change in acceptance composition per percentage-point change in application composition. A slope of one is not by itself evidence of equal acceptance chances: equal chances within every college would give the entire relation $a_{jt}=p_{jt}$, including zero intercept and no year shift. A fit with positive slope mainly confirms that applicant composition helps predict acceptance composition.

Regression diagnostics should include residuals versus fitted values and predictors, a residual normal Q-Q plot, checks of heteroscedasticity, regression leverage, studentized residuals and Cook's distance. The aggregate mature-college category merits an influence check and a sensitivity analysis: combining several colleges can conceal different within-college patterns. Repeated observations from the same college across years may have correlated errors, so treating them as independent needs justification. Check nonlinearity, the year interaction and the effects of excluding no observation except with a substantive reason.

Percentages are bounded, and their precision depends on their denominators. A simple weighted least squares or binomial analysis requires the underlying numbers accepted, not merely percentages. For a proportion based on $m$ people, the working variance is $\pi (1-\pi )/m$ under independent sampling, rather than constant across colleges. If the predictor percentage is itself estimated, an ordinary regression also ignores its uncertainty. The supplied summaries cannot recover all four cells of each college contingency table or the actual fitted numerical output.

The published Cambridge percentage table nevertheless allows a descriptive comparison of acceptance rates. Write $p$ for the maintained-school proportion among applicants and $a$ for its proportion among acceptances. The relative risk from group compositions givesThe overall acceptance probability cancels by Bayes' theorem. This risk ratio compares acceptance probabilities; it is not the acceptance odds ratio, which also needs the overall acceptance probability.

For Christ's, the two published application/acceptance pairs give risk ratios $37/77\approx 0.481$ and $147/187\approx 0.786$. If the displayed percentages were rounded to the nearest whole percentage point, the relative risk bounds from rounded group compositions give ranges approximately $[0.461,0.501]$ and $[0.755,0.818]$. Thus both comparisons remain below one under that rounding assumption. These are descriptive comparisons of observed groups, without adjustment for applicant qualifications or a causal effect interpretation. The published compositions determine approximate relative acceptance rates, but not their standard errors or the original regression results.

The printed formula expands to the main effects of school type, acceptance and college, together with school-type-by-college and acceptance-by-college interactions. It contains neither a school-type-by-acceptance interaction nor the corresponding three-way interaction. Its Poisson regression model is thereforeFor every college the mean table has odds ratioThus it tests conditional independence of school type and acceptance given college, while permitting both margins to vary freely across colleges. It does not merely assert a common, possibly nonzero association.

The maximum likelihood estimation score equations match every school-type-by-college and acceptance-by-college margin. Solving them gives the stratified two-by-two conditional independence model's fitted countsIndeed these counts factor by row and column and have exactly the observed margins. For nondegenerate tables there are three free mean parameters per college: one total and two independent margin proportions. There are $100$ cells and $75$ parameters, hence 25 residual degrees of freedom. The residual deviance iswith zero-count contributions interpreted as zero. The Poisson linear terms cancel because the fitted totals equal the observed totals. Under the null and suitable large-count regularity, compare $G^2$ with ${\chi }_{25}^2$. Sparse cells, structural zeros or degenerate margins require a different calibration, such as an appropriate conditional test or simulated reference distribution.

A large residual deviance is evidence of school-type/acceptance association in at least some colleges. A small one indicates compatibility with conditional independence, not proof of identical admission processes or absence of selection on qualifications. Residuals and individual college contrasts locate departures. Adding the school-type-by-acceptance term gives a common odds ratio, one extra parameter and 24 residual degrees of freedom. Adding the full three-way term permits each college's association and saturates the tables. The first comparison tests a common association; the second checks whether a common association is adequate. No frequencies are supplied here to evaluate these tests numerically.