Absurd Statistics

[Riverwind]

Here is an example of rediculous use of stats in the media:

"The startling fact is that half of all students are told they are below average. Just to make sure they don't miss the point, almost every report card includes a record of the class average."

Gee, I wonder what he would think if only 10% of students were below average?

It reminds me of the anti-poverty groups who use the LICO to measure poverty. LICO is defined by stats Canada to be the bottom 20% population. And, surprise surprise, no matter what governments do they cannot seem to reduce the poverty rate below 20%.

The original article is here:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

[PatM]

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter how well the child actually does, the lower half of the class is below average. Example, If the whole class got marks of 90-100%, the lower half is still below average.

At least that's what I got out of the article.

[August1991]

Spar, I think the author's comment was tongue-in-cheek. He was making the same point as you about LICO.

In fact though and to be precise, half the class is below the class median - not necessarily below the class average.

[bigdude]

This is quite a sad commentary on our school system all due to the God of competition.

We really do need the federal government to take over education and straighten out this and the other messes it is in.

For example what is stopping all our schools from being bilingual in Canada when this is what the vast majority of Canadians want?

[Riverwind]

Spar, I think the author's comment was tongue-in-cheek. He was making the same point as you about LICO.

In fact though and to be precise, half the class is below the class median - not necessarily below the class average.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It appears I read that article a little to quickly.

[Guest eureka]

LICO does not categorize the bottom 20% of the population. It is a measure based on proportions of average income and it fluctuates.

It has also been adjusted in the proportions since it was first introduced as a measure of relative poverty. In 1959, when it was first introduced into Stats Canada, the measure was based on 70% of average income. It has been changed several times since then, down ro, I think, 54.7% now. The effect of that has been to sharply reduce the numbers said to be in poverty from the twenties to about 12% now. The later figure is also a reduction occasioned by a shift from measuring after tax income to gross income.

The poverty is real. It also disguises an increase in numbers that would show if the average had not been skewed downward by the increase in the highrer income brackets at the expense of the lower. That reduces average income and lowers the threshold.