Interesting graphs and charts department

[footfootfoot]

That would scare the crap out of me.

Oh, and that graph? I hate its disingenuousness. disingenuous-ness? The relationship between the length of the line (years) is on a different scale from the height (dollars). Although there are 10 years and 10 ten thousand dollar increments, the ratios are different. The way the graph is drawn makes the cost increase seem more dramatic than it is.

And it takes one cost and doesn't compare it to other economic factors, like inflation. It's meaningless.

College education these days is pretty piss poor and that could be a whole 'nother thread. I taught a college for "dumb poor kids" and a friend of mine taught at a college for "dumb rich kids."

My wife taught for years at Fordham, a fairly respectable school, and she'd tell me about her students who would say they missed class because they had the 'flew.'

The graph should look more like this:

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's like we both know the stop sign is red, but I've no idea what you're seeing. I don't know what's going on in your head either, how you process input, or form your thoughts.

Of course what goes on in my head is normal, the standard...



just like everyone else.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Oh, and that graph? I hate its disingenuousness. disingenuous-ness? The relationship between the length of the line (years) is on a different scale from the height (dollars). Although there are 10 years and 10 ten thousand dollar increments, the ratios are different. The way the graph is drawn makes the cost increase seem more dramatic than it is.

And it takes one cost and doesn't compare it to other economic factors, like inflation. It's meaningless.

The vertical axis is not in $10,000 increments, it's in percentage change from the 2000 figure.

And I think the comparison is very meaningful. The reason for paying that tuition is the return in salary. Tuition is going up - faster than CPI - and salary for graduates is falling. Soon, if not already, it will be a financial mistake to go to college (for *many* degrees, says the philosophy gradaute, coughing nervously... engineering and medicine are probably still worthwhile).

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The vertical axis is not in $10,000 increments, it's in percentage change from the 2000 figure.

And I think the comparison is very meaningful. The reason for paying that tuition is the return in salary. Tuition is going up - faster than CPI - and salary for graduates is falling. Soon, if not already, it will be a financial mistake to go to college (for *many* degrees, says the philosophy gradaute, coughing nervously... engineering and medicine are probably still worthwhile).

Oops. Never mind. In that case, it does make sense. I need to follow links and read.
I agree with you about it being a financial mistake to go to college with the idea that college will somehow increase your earning potential. (With the exception of subjects like engineering and medicine and so forth.) As for liberal arts, *cough*fine arts*cough*, and what's that thinking cure called? Philosomething? College should be regarded as the very expensive 4 year vacation that it is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

At big companies I've seen a ton of jobs that require a degree, but they don't care what in, or where from, because they're going to tell you what to do, and exactly how they want it done.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

At big companies I've seen a ton of jobs that require a degree, but they don't care what in, or where from, because they're going to tell you what to do, and exactly how they want it done.

That's what we do. It's crazy, but you have to do something to weed out the absolute slackers from people who put in a minimum amount of effort in life.