By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
tarheel91 on 21 September 2010
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
tarheel91 said:

Based on unpublished data with no information about how the study was performed?  I'm calling BS on this.  This is not how statistics work.  You can't just (poorly) report your findings and nothing else.  They fail to use ranges, instead using point values which are very misleading.  They don't give you any idea about standard deviation or anything.


I mean, I could claim 98% of gamers are gay based on my unpublished data.  That doesn't make it true.

If you disagree with the data of the original post, find data you consider more accurate.  The problem with the U.S government data, is that it only looks at default rates within the first few years.  Nothing is found for longer out.

Here is another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14colleges.html

The default rates represent a snapshot in time, examining only borrowers whose first loan repayments came due from Oct. 1, 2007, to Sept. 30, 2008, and who defaulted before Sept. 30, 2009. Those who defaulted later were not included in the data; over time, default rates increase substantially.

Data I consider more accurate?  Hell I could sample myself and THAT would be more accurate.  For all we know this "data" could be pulled out of the guy's ass.  You can't cite "unpublished data" without an explanation of how the sampling was performed, what kind of ranges (based on standard deviation) we're dealing with, etc.  The first thing you learn in any statistics class is how easy it is to get the numbers to say whatever you want.  I'm amazed by how easily people accept reports just because they come from some "news site," especially when problems with the top tier sites are constantly exposed.  The government data might have faults, but I'm pretty sure you can go look at the study in-depth and examine exactly how they did it.  This is probably something they're doing after the fact, too, so it'd be easy to adjust.  With this study you cite, you're just blindly putting trust in the author.

Edit: I'd like to point out that the cost of school for me would be $20,000 over four years before scholarships.  Afterwards, it's half that.  College is costing less than it did to put me in daycare.  I'm very well aware that there are ways to put yourself in massive amounts of debt in college, but choosing to do so knowing full well that either a) you're choosing a path that is not a very reliable source of a good amount of money or b) your parents can't afford to cover however much is necessary to prevent you from going into debt is just stupid in my opinion.