I think they're being misleading, but I'm trying not to post a spoiler.
Because "attending" and not "graduating"?
It's a good point. I definitely had "have a college degree" in mind as I drew my line.
No, because they were implying there's a more interesting relationship than just linear. (Spoiler!)
Yes. I tried to draw a curve and got fucked over in the scoring for it.
My line had the right trend, I was in the 79th percentile, but was far too sinuous, which is their point.
6: That's what I got also. Exactly. Maybe the percentiles are faked?
My guess was more S shaped than the real line. I also was automatically thinking "obtained a college degree" rather than simply "attended college".
I was on my phone and so all I could do was an awesome squiggle where 100% of poorest children, 5% of 30%ers, 94% of 80%ers, and 40% of 99%ers went to college. I was still better than 13% of guesses, somehow.
That it's a linear relationship is interesting but I don't know what to say about it or why, and the article doesn't really either.
I got a line almost exactly on top of the data. Because I am a Super-Genius!
This chart is hooey. It's not about college. If you look at the underlying paper, the data they use comes from vocational schools and other postsecondary training schools that are eligible for federal financial aid -- NOT just colleges. See page 12 of the PDF:
College Attendance.We define college attendance as an indicator for having one or more 1098-T forms filed on one's behalf when the individual is aged 18-21. Title IV institutions - all colleges and universities as well as vocational schools and other post-secondary institutions eligible for federal student aid - are required to file 1098-T forms that report tuition payments or scholarships received for every student. Because the 1098-T forms are filed directly by colleges independent of whether an individual files a tax return, we have complete records on college attendance for all children.
If they had advertised this chart as showing postsecondary enrollment, which is all it really shows, I bet many more people would have accurately charted it. American families of children born in the 1980s have fully absorbed the message that postsecondary training is desirable. They just don't all pursue it at a 2-year or 4-year institution.
And to confirm, here are the relevant IRS pages explaining who files a 1098-T form, and how they define eligible educational institution.
Yeah, they mention vocational schools in the text, but the headline says college. It's really one big reading test. Anyway, here's the line I drew.
4/5/8: I did the same. I drew a sigmoid and they explicitly called me out on it. That's kind of cool.
I drew a sigmoid and they explicitly called me out on it. That's kind of cool.
I'm imagining that your results copy said something like, "Nice sigmoid, nerd", which would be pretty funny.
Mine, by contrast, was fairly linear, although too steep, and better than 87% of guessers. Wooo.
That is some weirdly linear data. I bet it was faked!
16: I thought you were bragging about how sensuous you are.
17: In a future where the bullies are sociologists. For the record: "Your line looked a little bit like an S, with a gradual increase for the poorest families and a leveling off for the rich. That's what we guessed the first time, too. But we were wrong. It's a straight line."
11 is what screwed me. OK, I'm in the UK, but I guessed that under 50% of people, on average, attend college. If I'd known they didn't mean a 4 year university degree, I'd have drawn a line much higher up the graph.
I also assumed that it tailed off a bit at the top end. Which it doesn't.
Two thoughts: of course I tried to draw a cock; the NYT should run this but secretly keep track of how many people try to draw cocks, then publish the results. Do a study on THAT, Michael Lacour!
23: "Your line looked a cock. We had added your IP to a list of possible Sex Offenders database. Thanks for your participation!"
95th percentile, bitches. The free point helped a lot, as I'd have guessed higher; I also greatly underestimated for the bottom income decile and assumed that it would even out at least a little in the interquartile range. It also helped that I didn't assume graduation, because all of the best people don't graduate.
I didn't read, so didn't see that it included education that I don't think of as "college". Also interesting to note the "attended" rather than obtained a degree. And, that the data covers kids attending college a decade ago. I feel like the trends are still changing (including changes in affordability over the last 10 years, and the recession, with potentially different impacts).
So, I'd really like to see the curve for those different conditions -- say, what does the curve look like for proportion of people with degrees from 4 y institutions as a function of parental income? That info isn't self-contained in their data set, though.
The tyranny of maple will reign no more.
28: When you acquired it from the tree, did you say, "Birch, you must be drippin'"?
One cannot acquire birch syrup from a tree.
Certainly not with that defeatist attitude, one cannot.
I too drew before looking at details and seeing how inclusive were the criteria. Anyone have any informed idea what the line would look like if confined to "graduated from 4 yr college"?
or er, 27. which appeared while I was writing.
