3 ms·

I up voted him because I thought the statistics showed an interesting correlation.

• tc 18y ago
  I'm curious though why you found it interesting. Without further data or analysis, the statements have no substantial meaning unless one conflates correlation with causation. You could just as easily say "people who go to college are more likely to have straight teeth."
  • GHFigs 18y ago
    You could just as easily say "people who go to college are more likely to have straight teeth." Except that isn't interesting. Money--particularly in large quantities--is more interesting than teeth.
  • breck 18y ago
    I definitely was not implying causation. I was merely pointing out that the article takes the exceptions (dropouts that became billionaires) as the rule, when in fact the opposite is true: dropouts don't become billionaires; graduates do. The article says the probability of becoming a billionaire increases if you are a dropout because 20% of billionaires are dropouts. But in fact, because there are many more people who didnt complete college than who did, this is even more wrong than if you didn't take that into consideration(which it seems the article didn't). Like pretty much every article in any type of popular publication, the statistical analysis in this article is wrong. Not "somewhat off", but "wrong". Like, if I was a stat teacher, I would put "F" at the top of the page. Just like I put "F" in my mind on every CNBC or WSJ headline that says "Market drops because of...". My comment was very short because if I put in much time debunking improper statistics I'd run out of time fast.