{"id":827,"date":"2009-11-17T13:08:14","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T13:08:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2009\/11\/17\/shameful-innumeracy-in-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2009-11-17T13:08:14","modified_gmt":"2009-11-17T13:08:14","slug":"shameful-innumeracy-in-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2009\/11\/17\/shameful-innumeracy-in-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Shameful Innumeracy in the New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> I&#8217;ve been writing this blog for a long time &#8211; nearly four years. You&#8217;d think that<br \/>\nafter all of the bad math I&#8217;ve written about, I must have reached the point where<br \/>\nI wouldn&#8217;t be surprised at the sheer innumeracy of most people &#8211; even most supposedly<br \/>\neducated people. But alas for me, I&#8217;m a hopeless idealist. I just never quite<br \/>\nmanage to absorb how clueless the average person is.<\/p>\n<p> Today in the New York Times, there&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2009\/11\/17\/opinion\/17tue2.html?_r=1&amp;ref=opinion\">an editorial<\/a> which talks about<br \/>\nthe difficulties faced by the children of immigrants. In the course of<br \/>\ntheir argument, they describe  what they claim is the difference between<br \/>\nthe academic performance of native-born versus immigrant children:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nWhereas native-born children&#8217;s language skills follow a bell<br \/>\ncurve, immigrants&#8217; children were crowded in the lower ranks: More than<br \/>\nthree-quarters of the sample scored below the 85th percentile in English<br \/>\nproficiency.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> Scoring in the 85th percentile on a test means that you did better on that<br \/>\ntest than 85 percent of the people who took it. So for the population <em>as a<br \/>\nwhole<\/em>, 85% of the people who took it scored below the 85th percentile &#8211;<br \/>\n<em>by definition<\/em>. So, if the immigrant population were perfectly matched<br \/>\nwith the population as a whole, then you&#8217;d expect <em>more than<\/em> 3\/4s the<br \/>\nscore below the 85th percentile.<\/p>\n<p> As they reported it, the most reasonable conclusion would be that on the<br \/>\nwhole, immigrant children do <em>better than<\/em> native-born children! The<br \/>\npopulation of test takers consists of native-born children and immigrant<br \/>\nchildren. (There&#8217;s no third option &#8211; if you&#8217;re going to school here, either<br \/>\nyou were born here, or you weren&#8217;t.) If 3\/4s of immigrant children are scoring<br \/>\n85th percentile or below, then that means that <em>more than<\/em> 85% of<br \/>\nthe non-immigrant children are scoring below 85th percentile.<\/p>\n<p> I have no idea where they&#8217;re getting their data. Nor do I have any idea of<br \/>\nwhat they <em>thought<\/em> they were saying. But what they actually said is a<br \/>\nmind-boggling stupid thing, and I can&#8217;t imagine how anyone who had the most<br \/>\ncursory understanding of what it actually meant would miss the fact that<br \/>\nthe statistic doesn&#8217;t in any way, shape, or form support the statement it&#8217;s<br \/>\nattached to.<\/p>\n<p> The people who write the editorials for the New York Times don&#8217;t even<br \/>\nknow what percentiles mean. It&#8217;s appalling. It&#8217;s worse that appalling &#8211; it&#8217;s<br \/>\nan absolute disgrace.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve been writing this blog for a long time &#8211; nearly four years. You&#8217;d think that after all of the bad math I&#8217;ve written about, I must have reached the point where I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised at the sheer innumeracy of most people &#8211; even most supposedly educated people. But alas for me, I&#8217;m a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-statistics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-dl","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=827"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/827\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}