The Propaganda of Numbers
Adelman, Clifford. The propaganda of numbers. The Chronicle Review, 53(8), 6.
This article presents an interesting perspective on how statistics have been (mis)used in educational research and in developing public policy. Adelman notes that at any given time one can find a variety of different statistics surrounding the same educational phenomenon, including graduation rates, persistence rates, percentage of student requiring remedial courses, and the like. What's most frightening is that the statistics that will reign as truth are often not those that are the most reliable, but rather those whose supporters have the best or most aggressive public relations campaign or understanding of ways to use the Internet to propagate (mis)information.
Adelman present two primary causes for why this is occurring. First, given that our society's current focus is on quantitative measures and that so much of our information gathering takes place on the Internet, "soundbite statistics" are very attractive. We tend to assume that these statistics are true, particularly when they appear multiple times on websites and in the media. Second, often times the statistics are presented in such a way that we don't understand the methodology used to arrive at presented conclusions. We tend to concern ourselves less with their validity and reliability and more about the "general impression" these statistics leave with us and whether or not they support our own instincts or agendas.
Adelman presents the example of NCAA graduation rates (which he describes as "unofficial statistics). While most often occurring in the sports sections of newspapers, published graduation rates varied widely but left the general impression with readers that rates were low. As such, public policy was created in the "Student-Athlete Right-to-Know Act." Adelman points out that this policy was based on 1) unofficial statistics and 2) statistics that were based on only 1.2% of students who attend four-year colleges (students participating on varsity teams in major sports). Adelman then points out that the graduation-rate formula that was created excludes roughly half of traditional-age undergraduates, as it does not take into account those who do not enter a college or university in the fall semester or who do not begin as a full-time student, or those who do not receive a degree from the same institution where they began their higher education.
Adelman also cites an example of a study that misused and combined statistics to create artificially low number of 9th graders who continue on to college and ultimately complete a bachelor's degree. In fact, the percentages of successful completion cited in the "unofficial" statistics are almost half of what is calculated using official statistics.
This article serves as an important reminder to be a critical consumer of information, particularly of concise statistics. While they may be compelling and present an interesting version of the truth, they may also be woefully incomplete.
This article presents an interesting perspective on how statistics have been (mis)used in educational research and in developing public policy. Adelman notes that at any given time one can find a variety of different statistics surrounding the same educational phenomenon, including graduation rates, persistence rates, percentage of student requiring remedial courses, and the like. What's most frightening is that the statistics that will reign as truth are often not those that are the most reliable, but rather those whose supporters have the best or most aggressive public relations campaign or understanding of ways to use the Internet to propagate (mis)information.
Adelman present two primary causes for why this is occurring. First, given that our society's current focus is on quantitative measures and that so much of our information gathering takes place on the Internet, "soundbite statistics" are very attractive. We tend to assume that these statistics are true, particularly when they appear multiple times on websites and in the media. Second, often times the statistics are presented in such a way that we don't understand the methodology used to arrive at presented conclusions. We tend to concern ourselves less with their validity and reliability and more about the "general impression" these statistics leave with us and whether or not they support our own instincts or agendas.
Adelman presents the example of NCAA graduation rates (which he describes as "unofficial statistics). While most often occurring in the sports sections of newspapers, published graduation rates varied widely but left the general impression with readers that rates were low. As such, public policy was created in the "Student-Athlete Right-to-Know Act." Adelman points out that this policy was based on 1) unofficial statistics and 2) statistics that were based on only 1.2% of students who attend four-year colleges (students participating on varsity teams in major sports). Adelman then points out that the graduation-rate formula that was created excludes roughly half of traditional-age undergraduates, as it does not take into account those who do not enter a college or university in the fall semester or who do not begin as a full-time student, or those who do not receive a degree from the same institution where they began their higher education.
Adelman also cites an example of a study that misused and combined statistics to create artificially low number of 9th graders who continue on to college and ultimately complete a bachelor's degree. In fact, the percentages of successful completion cited in the "unofficial" statistics are almost half of what is calculated using official statistics.
This article serves as an important reminder to be a critical consumer of information, particularly of concise statistics. While they may be compelling and present an interesting version of the truth, they may also be woefully incomplete.
posted by Kathleen Plinske at 8:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home