Yes, the "Good News" is more than likely, given the Charter of the Institution, that they answer the questions more "properly" and that while the answer were given as -1, 0 and 1, are the answers they gave not the "correctness"... Though for any of the givens questions a -1 or 0 or 1 could be the "most correct" answer. If you'll also look at how the data and project were framed, I'm sure she was coaxed into the "confirmatory" rather than expanding on the "exploratory" (and possibly "wrong" analysis) ways. She also didn't do any conversion type of analysis and much of the data was also skewed from the collection of the data, due to the method it was collected. Though the data was apparently sound, the collection methods were not blind, after all the data was collected from a sample of a self-selected group of students going to Biola. She was really trying to get good analysis from it, given her advice and steering. I think she did an admirable job, given the data-set and the circumstances.

Gotta remember, it is a "Christian" Institution -- FIRST. All others comes after that. The Science also follows that same trough. Not that "Christian" is a bad thing... just IMO, don't let it get in the way of seeing the real elephant in the room, versus the figment of someone's imagination.

And yes, I've already pointed her at "nutrition" for her need to crunch and grind numbers. Though she is looking at another type of governmental number crunching arena... finance and economy.

And, just so we are clear, she blew me away with her "work" she sent me. I'd have not been able to ignore the things she had to, in order to get her stuff done and reviewed and counted for her project.

I'd have never gotten it "right"... and there my dearest people, is why I'll never be able to break free.