3 ms·

[citation needed] Seriously, is there a central index of janitors somewhere listing their highest level of educational achievement from which a precise number

by hugh3 16y ago

[citation needed] Seriously, is there a central index of janitors somewhere listing their highest level of educational achievement from which a precise number like 5057 can be read out? Did they interview twenty janitors, find one who claimed to have a PhD, and extrapolate? Did they derive the number completely ex anum? Because I'm finding it difficult to believe.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I expect the answer to your question is buried somewhere in this document: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_itc.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_itc.htm
- achompas 16y ago
  Specifically at this link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_f.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_f.htm The short answer is, yes, they extrapolate from a sample. 72,000 households from 754 sample areas. Crude calculations here, but some quick linear analysis says they found 1 janitor with a PhD, JD, MBA, or another professional degree.
  - bd 16y ago
    Nice perspective, I can easily imagine finding one janitor with PhD in 200K town. There is absolutely nothing surprising about this (in contrast to seemingly high 5000 PhD janitors in the whole US).
Alex3917 16y ago
I haven't read the methodology for how the bureau of labor statistics gets its data, but I'd be very surprised if it were significantly flawed. The federal government is generally extremely competent at collecting social sciences data like this. I'd actually say that it's one of the few things the government does really well. The big thing you need to watch out for is the media and other government agencies spinning it. For example I always see MSM articles saying that 41% of Americans have tried weed, despite the fact that it's closer to 85% of Americans under age 55.[1] (And above that we don't have as good data.) [1] http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hugh3 16y ago
  despite the fact that it's closer to 85% of Americans under age 55. [citation needed] again, I'm afraid.

by hugh3 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I expect the answer to your question is buried somewhere in this document: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_itc.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_itc.htm

achompas 16y ago
Specifically at this link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_f.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch1_f.htm The short answer is, yes, they extrapolate from a sample. 72,000 households from 754 sample areas. Crude calculations here, but some quick linear analysis says they found 1 janitor with a PhD, JD, MBA, or another professional degree.
- bd 16y ago
  Nice perspective, I can easily imagine finding one janitor with PhD in 200K town. There is absolutely nothing surprising about this (in contrast to seemingly high 5000 PhD janitors in the whole US).

Alex3917 16y ago

I haven't read the methodology for how the bureau of labor statistics gets its data, but I'd be very surprised if it were significantly flawed. The federal government is generally extremely competent at collecting social sciences data like this. I'd actually say that it's one of the few things the government does really well. The big thing you need to watch out for is the media and other government agencies spinning it. For example I always see MSM articles saying that 41% of Americans have tried weed, despite the fact that it's closer to 85% of Americans under age 55.[1] (And above that we don't have as good data.) [1] http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 16y ago
despite the fact that it's closer to 85% of Americans under age 55. [citation needed] again, I'm afraid.