3 ms·
"you need to actually provide evidence for this." This is disingenuous. Documentary evidence is restricted by privacy laws, but the anecdotal evidence is self-
by 001sky 13y ago
"you need to actually provide evidence for this."
This is disingenuous. Documentary evidence is restricted by privacy laws, but the anecdotal evidence is self-evident. That's why the evidence they do show, eg about the 70% in the top quartile, makes sense and is consistent with your comments (100-70-5=25).
Most "diversity" is from black lawyers, hispanic diplomats, and "poor white" children of liberal arts PhD's.
- res0nat0r 13y agoBut... the plural of anecdote is not data.
- 001sky 13y agoYes, but so what? Data itself is not evidence of relevance. Nor does lack of "data" imply lack of relevance. We know the requested data will not be forthcoming, so be-moaning the lack data is an empty gesture. It also ignores the data that is present.
- res0nat0r 13y agoBut, you said there isn't any actual data, just anecdotes. So without any actual measurable, quantifiable data, the above shouldn't be considered scientific and could be incorrect.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- verbin217 13y agoThere are questions worth asking that can't be answered (for now or forever) by science. Your comment betrays a kind of narcissistic empiricism the devalues anything outside it's own power.
- lmm 13y agoWell, my anecdotal experience disagrees with yours; I met the children of bricklayers and postmen and gardeners, not of liberal arts PhDs. I don't think I'm asking for an impossible standard of evidence; an income breakdown of financial aid recipients across whatever line the article author considers "truly poor" doesn't seem like it would inherently violate privacy laws.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]