Hasn't that always been the purpose of the junior adjustment?! Calculate Little Johnnys performance, and then stick a junior increment on to reflect the fact that he is likely get better over the next 12 months. Its used to be a flat 10 points for all juniors, then it became gradiated according to age. Now, with accurate data available they have been able to calculate what the increment should actually be, rather than just stick a finger in the air. I haven't seen the calculations, but I have no reason to doubt that they are correct.Roger de Coverly wrote: The junior adjustments seem to be factoring in improvements which haven't happened yet.
I dont know whether the ECF will publish this data or not. What I do know is that it wont help you one jot in determining if rampant inflation has been introduced. Simply having these parallel grades on their own wouldnt allow anyone to prove inflation, deflation, or anything else. You would need far more information than that, including all of the individuall results for a start.Roger de Coverly wrote:
If I've understood the process correctly, parallel grades have been calculated for 2008 (published) , 2007 and 2006 (unpublished). The sceptics need to see the results for 2006 and 2007 to demonstrate that rampant inflation has not been permanently injected into the system.
Given that you dont even believe that deflation exists, despite the weight of statistical evidence, it's difficult to believe that you would be be able to examine the evidence objectively.