Final Scores • Discussed applications will receive an overall score from each eligible (i.e., without conflicts of interest) panel member and these scores will be averaged to one decimal place, and multiplied by 10. The 81 possible priority scores will thus range from 10-90. • Percentiles will be reported in whole numbers.
View full slide show




SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN METHODS 5th Edition System DFD Whitten Bentley Dittman (see book for more readable copy) Most DFDs won’t fit on one or two pages – too many event processes. Instead they must be illustrated in a series of system diagrams that correspond to the structure originally depicted in the functional decomposition diagram. Transactions Product and Availability Products Product and Availability Relevant Transactions Member Member Order Process Member Order Inventory Commitment Inventory Commitmen t Member Subscription Order Warehouse Packing Order Process Subscription Order Packing Order Member Order Confirmation Subscription Order Confirmation New Member Ordered Products Member Updated Member from Order Members New Member Order New Member Ordered Products Address New Member Order Members Member Orders Member Ordered Products Member Orders Deleted Member Order Orders Updated Member Updated Member Order Updated Member from Updated Order Member Order Change Request Deleted Member Ordered Products Ordered Products Member Process Member Order Revision Member Order Confirmation Product and Availability Generate Order Analysis Report Process Member Order Cancelation Updated Member Ordered Products Member Order Cancelation Member Member Order Cancelation Notice End of Day Inventory Commitment Revised Packing Order Warehouse Time Order Analysis Report Club Directors Products Irwin/McGraw-Hill Copyright © 2000 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights res
View full slide show




Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology 2 3. Calculate – The normalized analysts’ recommendations and the accuracy weightings are combined to create a single score. For the largest 1,500 stocks by market capitalization, these scores are then forcibly ranked against all the other scores to create a standardized Equity Summary Score on a scale of 0.1 to 10.0 for the 1,500 stocks. This means that there will be a uniform distribution of scores provided by the model thereby assisting investors in evaluating the largest stocks (in terms of Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology Provided By 2 capitalization), which typically make up the majority of individual investors’ portfolios. Finally, smaller cap stocks are then slotted into this distribution without a force ranking, and may not exhibit the same balanced distribution. The Equity Summary Score and associated sentiment ratings by StarMine are: 0.1 to 1.0 ‐ very bearish 1.1 to 3.0 ‐ bearish 3.1 to 7.0 ‐ neutral 7.1 to 9.0 ‐ bullish 9.1 to 10.0 ‐ very bullish Other Important Model Factors:  An Equity Summary Score is only provided for stocks with ratings from four or more independent research providers.  New research providers are ramped in slowly by StarMine to avoid rapid fluctuations in Equity Summary Scores. Indep. research providers that are removed from Fidelity.com will similarly be ramped out slowly to avoid rapid fluctuations. Notes on Using the Equity Summary Score: The Equity Summary Score and sentiment ratings are ratings of relative, not absolute forecasted performance. The StarMine model anticipates that the highest rated stocks, those labeled “Very Bullish” as a group, may outperform lower rated groups of stocks. In a rising market, most stocks may experience price increases, and in a declining market, most stocks may experience price declines  Proper diversification within a portfolio is critical to the effective use of the Equity Summary Score. Individual company performance is subject to a broad range of factors that cannot be adequately captured in any rating system.  Larger differences in Equity Summary Scores may lead to differences in future performance. The sentiment rating labels should only be used for quick categorization. An 8.9 Bullish is closer to a 9.1 Very Bullish than a 7.1 Bullish.  For a customer holding a stock with a lower Equity Summary Score, there are many important considerations (for example, taxes) that may be much more important than the Score.  The Equity Summary Score by StarMine does not predict future performance of underlying stocks. The Equity Summary Score model has only been in production since August 2009 and therefore no assumptions should be made about how the model will perform in differing market conditions. Understanding the Equity Summary Score Methodology Provided By 3 How has the Equity Summary Score performed? Transparency is a core value at Fidelity, and that is why StarMine provides Fidelity with a view of the historical aggregate performance of the Equity Summary Score across all covered stocks each month. You can use this to obtain insight into the performance and composition of the Equity Summary Score. In addition, the individual stock price performance during each period of the Equity Summary
View full slide show




5. Mean projections and mean student scores are calculated. Student Projection1 Student Score 1 Student Projection 2 Student Score 2 Student Projection 3 Student Score 3 Student Projection 4 Student Score 4 Student Projection 5 Your School Student Score 5 Student Projection 6 Student Score 6 Student Projection 7 Student Score 7 Student Projection 8 Student Score 8 Student Projection 9 Student Score 9 Student Projection 10 Student Score 10 Student Projection 11 Student Score 11 Student Projection 12 Student Score 12 Student Projection 13 Student Score 13 Student Projection 14 Student Score 14 Student Projection 15 Student Score 15 Student Projection 16 Student Score 16 Student Projection 17 Student Score 17 Student Projection 18 Student Score 18 Student Projection 19 Student Score 19 Student Projection 20 Student Score 20 Mean Projected Score Mean Student Score Copyright © 2003. Battelle for Kids
View full slide show




Part 1: Introduction [28/43] SIPP Rotating Panel The lessons learned from ISDP were incorporated into the initial design of SIPP, which was used for the first 10 years of the survey. The original design of SIPP called for a nationally representative sample of individuals 15 years of age and older to be selected in households in the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Those individuals, along with others who subsequently lived with them, were to be interviewed once every 4 months over a 32-month period. To ease field procedures and spread the work evenly over the 4-month reference period for the interviewers, the Census Bureau randomly divided each panel into four rotation groups. Each rotation group was interviewed in a separate month. Four rotation groups thus constituted one cycle, called a wave, of interviewing for the entire panel. At each interview, respondents were asked to provide information covering the 4 months since the previous interview. The 4-month span was the reference period for the interview. The first sample, the 1984 Panel, began interviews in October 1983 with sample members in 19,878 households. The second sample, the 1985 Panel, began in February 1985. Subsequent panels began in February of each calendar year, resulting in concurrent administration of the survey in multiple panels. The original goal was to have each panel cover eight waves. However, a number of panels were terminated early because of insufficient funding. For example, the 1988 Panel had six waves; the 1989 Panel, part of which was folded into the 1990 Panel, was halted after three waves. In addition, the intent was for each SIPP panel to have an initial sample size of 20,000 households. That target was rarely achieved; again, budget issues were usually the reason. The 1996 redesign (discussed below) entailed a number of important changes. First, the 1996 Panel spans 4 years and encompasses 12 waves. The redesign has abandoned the overlapping panel structure of the earlier SIPP, but sample size has been substantially increased: the 1996 Panel had an initial sample size of 40,188 households.
View full slide show




2009 2010 2011 2012 424 2013 UM Flint Town Hall on Enrollment, 4/21/2015 2014 20 Zero EFC 40 PELL Eligible 199 193 Not PELL Eligible PELL Eligible Exceeds Costs of Attendance 249 No FAFSA 432 Zero EFC PELL Eligible 62 Not PELL Eligible 213 226 Exceeds Costs of Attendance Not PELL Eligible No FAFSA 425 Zero EFC 175 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 182 PELL Eligible 255 Not PELL Eligible 48 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 233 246 No FAFSA 236 Zero EFC Exceeds Costs of Attendance PELL Eligible 89 2014 40 Not PELL Eligible 237 2013 62 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 182 167 2012 2011 48 No FAFSA 280 89 Zero EFC 233 2010 50 PELL Eligible 86 2009 2014 2013 2012 2011 86 Not PELL Eligible No FAFSA Student financial resources (EFC) 2010 100 Exceeds Costs of Attendance 293 No FAFSA Zero EFC PELL Eligible Not PELL Eligible Exceeds Costs of Attendance 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2009 0 No FAFSA 200 167 175 150 58 Zero EFC Students who left UM‐Flint and Never Came Back By Year By EFC Group 373 422 278 232 224 58
View full slide show




Results: Fall 2013 & Spring 2014 Single Reader Scores, Spring 2014 (Out of 540 total reads ) 143 178 * 22 DQ Essays * 68 DQ Essays 117 102 133 129 85 95 63 55 30 28 Score 5 Score 4 Avg. Score: 2.24 Score 3 Score 2 Score 1 Score 0 Passing Scores (>=3) 77 (27.6%) Score 5 Score 4 Score 3 Score 2 Score 1 Score 0 Avg. Score: 2.27 Passing Scores (>=3) 64 (31.8%)
View full slide show