library(ggplot2)
download.file("http://www.openintro.org/stat/data/evals.RData", destfile = "evals.RData")
load("evals.RData")

Exercise 1: Is this an observational study or an experiment?The original research question posed in the paper is whether beauty leads directly to the differences in course evaluations.Given the study design, is it possible to answer this question as it is phrased?If not, rephrase the question.

hist(evals$score
     , col= "Lavender")

Excercise 3: Excluding score, select two other variables and describe their relationship using an appropriate visualization (scatterplot, side-by-side boxplots, or mosaic plot).

Based on observation theirs is a minimal difference between beauty and the course level/difficulty(upper or lower). I didn’t anticipate there being much of a difference, but I was curious if the difficulty of the course would directly change how the students view towards instructor, a factor that I have seen occur. But in this case, this wouldn’t apply

plot(evals$bty_avg~ evals$cls_leve)

plot(evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)

Excercise 4: Replot the scatterplot, but this time use the function jitter() on the y- or the x-coordinate.(Use ?jitter to learn more.) What was misleading about the initial scatterplot?

It wasn’t able to show a significant relationship between beauty average and score due to overlapping scores, as well as their seeming to be more date than the number of points on the scatter plot.

plot(jitter(evals$score)~ jitter(evals$bty_avg))

Excercise 5:Let’s see if the apparent trend in the plot is something more than natural variation. Fit a linear model called m_bty to predict average professor score by average beauty rating and add the line to your plot using abline(m_bty). Write out the equation for the linear model and interpret the slope. Is average beauty score a statistically significant predictor? Does it appear to be a practically significant predictor?

Equation: yhat = 3.88034 + 0.0664*(bty_avg), overall bty_avg is a good predictor for beauty score, it does have a low R-squared value, along with the predicted increase of 0.0666, it wouldn’t be suitable for evaluation score prediction.

m_bty <- lm(evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)
plot(jitter(evals$score) ~ jitter(evals$bty_avg))

summary(m_bty)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = evals$score ~ evals$bty_avg)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.9246 -0.3690  0.1420  0.3977  0.9309 
## 
## Coefficients:
##               Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)    3.88034    0.07614   50.96  < 2e-16 ***
## evals$bty_avg  0.06664    0.01629    4.09 5.08e-05 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5348 on 461 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.03502,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.03293 
## F-statistic: 16.73 on 1 and 461 DF,  p-value: 5.083e-05

Excercise 6: Use residual plots to evaluate whether the conditions of least squares regression are reasonable.

Provide plots and comments for each one (see the Simple Regression Lab for a reminder of how to make these). From the histogram we can see that the residuals are not normally distributed as shown by the left skew, we can also see the residuals are not centered around the zero line. Pushing it further away from the criteria needed for the conditions to be reasonable.

plot(m_bty$residuals ~ evals$bty_avg)

hist(m_bty$residuals,
     col = "Lavender")

plot(evals$bty_avg ~ evals$bty_f1lower)

cor(evals$bty_avg, evals$bty_f1lower)
## [1] 0.8439112
plot(evals[,13:19])

m_bty_gen <- lm(score ~ bty_avg + gender, data = evals)
summary(m_bty_gen)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ bty_avg + gender, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.8305 -0.3625  0.1055  0.4213  0.9314 
## 
## Coefficients:
##             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)  3.74734    0.08466  44.266  < 2e-16 ***
## bty_avg      0.07416    0.01625   4.563 6.48e-06 ***
## gendermale   0.17239    0.05022   3.433 0.000652 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5287 on 460 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.05912,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.05503 
## F-statistic: 14.45 on 2 and 460 DF,  p-value: 8.177e-07

Excercise 7: P-values and parameter estimates should only be trusted if the conditions for the regression are reasonable. Verify that the conditions for this model are reasonable using diagnostic plots.

(I tired)

qqnorm(m_bty_gen$residuals)

plot(m_bty_gen$residuals ~ m_bty_gen$fitted.values)

plot(m_bty_gen$residuals)

plot(evals$score ~ evals$gender, col = "Lavender")

  #5.)Overall we the qqplot shows that most data is along the normal line, excluding the upper end where it seem to curve slightly, while the residuals are plotted are spread along the zero line seemingly at random.   
plot(m_bty_gen$residuals ~ evals$bty_avg)

8:Is bty_avg still a significant predictor of score? Has the addition of gender to the model changed the parameter estimate for bty_avg?

I would say yes, based on both the summary and previous exercise gender seemed to have made average beauty more significant due to the notable difference in the p-value, compared to when beauty average was the only variable being considered.

summary(m_bty_gen)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ bty_avg + gender, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.8305 -0.3625  0.1055  0.4213  0.9314 
## 
## Coefficients:
##             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)  3.74734    0.08466  44.266  < 2e-16 ***
## bty_avg      0.07416    0.01625   4.563 6.48e-06 ***
## gendermale   0.17239    0.05022   3.433 0.000652 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5287 on 460 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.05912,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.05503 
## F-statistic: 14.45 on 2 and 460 DF,  p-value: 8.177e-07

Excercise 9:What is the equation of the line corresponding to males? (Hint: For males, the parameter estimate is multiplied by 1.) For two professors who received the same beauty rating, which gender tends to have the higher course evaluation score?

score hat = 3.74734 + 0.17239X beauty score x 1, in the end, males would have a higher beauty rating

Excercise 10: Create a new model called m_bty_rank with gender removed and rank added in. How does R appear to handle categorical variables that have more than two levels? Note that the rank variable has three levels: teaching, tenure track, tenured.

It seems to handle it by conditions them both 2 different variables, in other words, based on how many categorical levels are present, would be equal to the number of different variables made.

m_bty_rank <- lm(score ~ bty_avg + rank, data = evals)
summary(m_bty_rank)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ bty_avg + rank, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.8713 -0.3642  0.1489  0.4103  0.9525 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                  Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)       3.98155    0.09078  43.860  < 2e-16 ***
## bty_avg           0.06783    0.01655   4.098 4.92e-05 ***
## ranktenure track -0.16070    0.07395  -2.173   0.0303 *  
## ranktenured      -0.12623    0.06266  -2.014   0.0445 *  
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.5328 on 459 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.04652,    Adjusted R-squared:  0.04029 
## F-statistic: 7.465 on 3 and 459 DF,  p-value: 6.88e-05
multiLines(m_bty_rank)

Excercise 11:Which variable would you expect to have the highest p-value in this model? Why? Hint: Think about which variable would you expect to not have any association with the professor score.

The variable I expected would would have the least association would be number of professors while, so it should have the highest p-value.

Excercise 12: Check your suspicions from the previous exercise.

Include the model output in your response. Based on the plot and the summary we can see that among of professors in class has the most minimal affect, based of visualization and its respected P value.

m_full <- lm(score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval 
             + cls_students + cls_level + cls_profs + cls_credits + bty_avg 
             + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(m_full)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + 
##     cls_perc_eval + cls_students + cls_level + cls_profs + cls_credits + 
##     bty_avg + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##      Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
## -1.77397 -0.32432  0.09067  0.35183  0.95036 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                         Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            4.0952141  0.2905277  14.096  < 2e-16 ***
## ranktenure track      -0.1475932  0.0820671  -1.798  0.07278 .  
## ranktenured           -0.0973378  0.0663296  -1.467  0.14295    
## ethnicitynot minority  0.1234929  0.0786273   1.571  0.11698    
## gendermale             0.2109481  0.0518230   4.071 5.54e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.2298112  0.1113754  -2.063  0.03965 *  
## age                   -0.0090072  0.0031359  -2.872  0.00427 ** 
## cls_perc_eval          0.0053272  0.0015393   3.461  0.00059 ***
## cls_students           0.0004546  0.0003774   1.205  0.22896    
## cls_levelupper         0.0605140  0.0575617   1.051  0.29369    
## cls_profssingle       -0.0146619  0.0519885  -0.282  0.77806    
## cls_creditsone credit  0.5020432  0.1159388   4.330 1.84e-05 ***
## bty_avg                0.0400333  0.0175064   2.287  0.02267 *  
## pic_outfitnot formal  -0.1126817  0.0738800  -1.525  0.12792    
## pic_colorcolor        -0.2172630  0.0715021  -3.039  0.00252 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.498 on 448 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.1871, Adjusted R-squared:  0.1617 
## F-statistic: 7.366 on 14 and 448 DF,  p-value: 6.552e-14
plot(evals$score ~ evals$cls_profs, col = "lavender")

Excercise 13:Interpret the coefficient associated with the ethnicity variable.

Based on the summary, I would assume that evaluations for professors would not be considered a minority may be 0.123 times higher then those who aren’t.

Excercise 14: Drop the variable with the highest p-value and re-fit the model.

Did the coefficients and significance of the other explanatory variables change? (One of the things that makes multiple regression interesting is that coefficient estimates depend on the other variables that are included in the model.) If not, what does this say about whether or not the dropped variable was collinear with the other explanatory variables? Their seemed to be a slight change when remove class professors, as all the values now have a lower and or more significant p value

m_full <- lm(score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval 
             + cls_students + cls_level + cls_credits + bty_avg 
             + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(m_full)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ rank + ethnicity + gender + language + age + 
##     cls_perc_eval + cls_students + cls_level + cls_credits + 
##     bty_avg + pic_outfit + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##     Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
## -1.7836 -0.3257  0.0859  0.3513  0.9551 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                         Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            4.0872523  0.2888562  14.150  < 2e-16 ***
## ranktenure track      -0.1476746  0.0819824  -1.801 0.072327 .  
## ranktenured           -0.0973829  0.0662614  -1.470 0.142349    
## ethnicitynot minority  0.1274458  0.0772887   1.649 0.099856 .  
## gendermale             0.2101231  0.0516873   4.065 5.66e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.2282894  0.1111305  -2.054 0.040530 *  
## age                   -0.0089992  0.0031326  -2.873 0.004262 ** 
## cls_perc_eval          0.0052888  0.0015317   3.453 0.000607 ***
## cls_students           0.0004687  0.0003737   1.254 0.210384    
## cls_levelupper         0.0606374  0.0575010   1.055 0.292200    
## cls_creditsone credit  0.5061196  0.1149163   4.404 1.33e-05 ***
## bty_avg                0.0398629  0.0174780   2.281 0.023032 *  
## pic_outfitnot formal  -0.1083227  0.0721711  -1.501 0.134080    
## pic_colorcolor        -0.2190527  0.0711469  -3.079 0.002205 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.4974 on 449 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.187,  Adjusted R-squared:  0.1634 
## F-statistic: 7.943 on 13 and 449 DF,  p-value: 2.336e-14

Excercise 15:Using backward-selection and p-value as the selection criterion, determine the best model. You do not need to show all steps in your answer, just the output for the final model. Also, write out the linear model for predicting score based on the final model you settle on.

pr 3.771922 + 0.167872* ethnicity + 0.207112* gender -0.206178 * language -0.006046* age +0.004656* claspereval + .505306* credits + .051069* beauty - .190579*color

fb <- lm(score ~ ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval + cls_credits + bty_avg + pic_color, data = evals)
summary(fb)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = score ~ ethnicity + gender + language + age + cls_perc_eval + 
##     cls_credits + bty_avg + pic_color, data = evals)
## 
## Residuals:
##      Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
## -1.85320 -0.32394  0.09984  0.37930  0.93610 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                        Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
## (Intercept)            3.771922   0.232053  16.255  < 2e-16 ***
## ethnicitynot minority  0.167872   0.075275   2.230  0.02623 *  
## gendermale             0.207112   0.050135   4.131 4.30e-05 ***
## languagenon-english   -0.206178   0.103639  -1.989  0.04726 *  
## age                   -0.006046   0.002612  -2.315  0.02108 *  
## cls_perc_eval          0.004656   0.001435   3.244  0.00127 ** 
## cls_creditsone credit  0.505306   0.104119   4.853 1.67e-06 ***
## bty_avg                0.051069   0.016934   3.016  0.00271 ** 
## pic_colorcolor        -0.190579   0.067351  -2.830  0.00487 ** 
## ---
## Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## 
## Residual standard error: 0.4992 on 454 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.1722, Adjusted R-squared:  0.1576 
## F-statistic:  11.8 on 8 and 454 DF,  p-value: 2.58e-15

Excercise 16:Verify that the conditions for this model are reasonable using diagnostic plots.

residuals seem to be nearly normal while the variability seems to be constant

qqnorm(fb$residuals)

plot(fb)

hist(fb$residuals, 
     col = "Lavender")

### Exercise 17: The original paper describes how these data were gathered by taking a sample of professors from the University of Texas at Austin and including all courses that they have taught. Considering that each row represents a course, could this new information have an impact on any of the conditions of linear regression? It would have a effect due to violating the independence condition, as the courses themselves would be independent of one another causing the score of each course to be independent as well.

Exercise 18:Based on your final model, describe the characteristics of a professor and course at University of Texas at Austin that would be associated with a high evaluation score.

Based on the mode those who receive a education in an English taught school, would be males,non-minority, techs a one credit course, fairly young, height beauty score, have a high % of students that actually completer the evaluations, and use pictures in color, would coincide with receiving a high evaluation.

Excercise 19:Would you be comfortable generalizing your conclusions to apply to professors generally (at any university)? Why or why not?

No, mainly due to the the findings being catered towards Austin Texas University, so it doesn’t consider differing the variables and other qualities of others professors in different university.