Bulent Uyar

Student performance in business and economics statistics: Does exam structure matter?

We investigate whether exam structure really matters in an economics and business statistics course by (1) determining how well performance on multiple choice questions alone expalins overall performance on exams composed of both multiple choice questions and problems, and (2) discovering whether various student characteristics have significantly different impacts on student performance on multiple choice questions versus problems. Our findings suggest that student scores on multiple-choice portions of exams do not adequately determine overall student performance, and that some students are predisposed to do better on multiple choice or problems depending on the characteristics they possess.(JEl A22, A29)

On the relativity of the concepts of needs, wants, scarcity and opportunity cost

Starts from the premiss that the concept of scarcity is the cornerstone of economics. Discusses concepts of needs and wants. Reviews some views on the differences between needs and wants, the reasons for these differences and their scarcity and opportunity cost.

Correlates of student performance in Business and Economics Statistics

Over the years many studies have been done to investigate the determinants of student performance in courses of particular fields of study. However, this is not true of Introduction to Business and Economics Statistics. Our objective is to identify the correlates of student performance both overall, and on individual exams, in an Introduction to Business and Economics Statistics course. A wide variety of variables are found to significantly influence the performance of students, including their grades on previous exams and examination design. Our results indicate that it is important to isolate performance on individual exams.

Rank order analysis of state general obligation bond ratings

This study extends research which suggests the possibility that different economic variables might have been emphasized by Moody’s in establishing state bond ratings. The objectives and the scope of the earlier study preclude formal testing, and the Scheffe test is not the proper statistical tool to investigate the issue. This study uses rank order analysis to conduct a formal test. It confirms the existence of regionalization in state bond ratings. It finds statistical evidence that beginning in the early 1970s different economic variables were emphasized in establishing the ratings. The change in economic variables coincides with the administrative change in Moody’s in 1972.

Searching for on-field parity: evidence from National Football League scheduling during 1991-2006.

The authors analyze whether the scheduling changes the National Football League (NFL) made at the time to promote parity had the desired impact on the 1995-1998 and the 2003-2006 seasons compared to the 1991-1994 and the 1999-2002 seasons. Using the relative standard deviation (RSD), the authors find that the scheduling changes did not significantly influence parity. However, this result does not imply that scheduling changes do not affect competitive balance or have no benefits. Competitive balance can manifest itself in different ways and, therefore, it is imperative to look at multiple indicators before declaring policy and rule changes a failure or a success.

Moody’s ratings and regionalization: State government general obligation bonds

For the period 1930, 1931, 1937–1987, the Scheffe’s test provides evidence of regionalization in Moody’s ratings of state government general obligation bonds. Sub-period analysis indicates a reduction in the extent of regionalization over time. Findings suggest this may be due to a change in the criteria used in rating such bonds. However, further study is necessary on this topic. The results also suggest that further study is necessary on the question of why two political-economic variables show no regionalization and the meaning of this finding to bond ratings.