3 ms·

No, the graph is very misleading. The first one is not of rates of change, it's % relative to 2007. Which is a really really weird way to graph things.

cinquemb 13y ago
Yet it clearly stated what it was measuring in the title regardless of if "really weird" or not. If I was reading a graph that measured % moles of two different substances in a solution over a period of time that was adjusted at t=x and mentioned for in the title, sure, some might see that as "really weird", but one will still be able to extract information from it and apply it in a context of a report (as BoA did in theirs and mine in my statement). But let me not sit here and type away on the internet and think that some graph is going to wipe away the cognitive dissonance of populations…
- argonaut 13y ago
  The graph is misleading because it misleads the reader into believing that college grads and non-college grads made the same real wage in 2007, disguising the fact that there was a substantial gap between their wages at 2007. The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same, in effect telling us nothing. There are entire classes of misleading graphs that are misleading despite being technically, literally, valid. Your snark is not helping.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Telling us nothing, or you nothing? Let's have an example… x = 60,000, y = 30,000 with difference, d = 30,000 >the fact that both wages fall a similar percentage relative Let's pick some random rate and apply it to both, r = %10. Now what decreased more: %10 of x or %10 of y? >the gap between both wage classes remained the same Really? Do the math, and d is now = 27,000. I'm sure such math helps BoA in its positions in the private student loan market (and beyond) in such an environment. Let's not pretend that my snark stands in the way of your understanding, clearly you had that going for you anyways…
    - argonaut 13y ago
      I won't respond to this more than I already have. It's pretty clear you're reading too much into it emotionally.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Haha yes, this has been pretty amusing to answer tangential nitpicking with basic arithmetic.
        seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        The discussion was about intellectual honesty, not math.
  - mikeyouse 13y ago
    His obstinance aside, here is a better graph of the value of college diplomas: http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same Well, no. In dollar terms, the gap would have become smaller.

cinquemb 13y ago

Yet it clearly stated what it was measuring in the title regardless of if "really weird" or not. If I was reading a graph that measured % moles of two different substances in a solution over a period of time that was adjusted at t=x and mentioned for in the title, sure, some might see that as "really weird", but one will still be able to extract information from it and apply it in a context of a report (as BoA did in theirs and mine in my statement). But let me not sit here and type away on the internet and think that some graph is going to wipe away the cognitive dissonance of populations…

argonaut 13y ago
The graph is misleading because it misleads the reader into believing that college grads and non-college grads made the same real wage in 2007, disguising the fact that there was a substantial gap between their wages at 2007. The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same, in effect telling us nothing. There are entire classes of misleading graphs that are misleading despite being technically, literally, valid. Your snark is not helping.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Telling us nothing, or you nothing? Let's have an example… x = 60,000, y = 30,000 with difference, d = 30,000 >the fact that both wages fall a similar percentage relative Let's pick some random rate and apply it to both, r = %10. Now what decreased more: %10 of x or %10 of y? >the gap between both wage classes remained the same Really? Do the math, and d is now = 27,000. I'm sure such math helps BoA in its positions in the private student loan market (and beyond) in such an environment. Let's not pretend that my snark stands in the way of your understanding, clearly you had that going for you anyways…
  - argonaut 13y ago
    I won't respond to this more than I already have. It's pretty clear you're reading too much into it emotionally.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Haha yes, this has been pretty amusing to answer tangential nitpicking with basic arithmetic.
      - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
        The discussion was about intellectual honesty, not math.
- mikeyouse 13y ago
  His obstinance aside, here is a better graph of the value of college diplomas: http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png http://i.imgur.com/s3GqHl2.png
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  The fact that both wages fall a similiar percentage relative to 2007 only tells us that the gap between both wage classes remained the same Well, no. In dollar terms, the gap would have become smaller.