Is there a way to reconcile their graph, which shows the cost of education going up by 1000% on their index, with the statistic, lower on the same page, that says the cost of education has gone up by 439%?
The graph shows a 1000-ish percent increase in tuition since 1978, the 439% number later on the page is the cost (not tuition) increase since 1982. Measuring different things from different starting points.
The index has 1978=100 (or is that 1970? The graphic is very vague on an iPad), the 439% is since 1982. Eying the graph, that 439% is about right (200-ish to 1100-ish is a factor of 5,5-ish, or about 450%)
1. it's an infographic, not intended as meaningful discourse.
2. It talks about tuition, which is a nonsense metric, since private (and to a lesser extent public) colleges offer steep discounts (aid). A meaningful analysis would report on actual payments.
Comments
Is there a way to reconcile their graph, which shows the cost of education going up by 1000% on their index, with the statistic, lower on the same page, that says the cost of education has gone up by 439%?
The graph shows a 1000-ish percent increase in tuition since 1978, the 439% number later on the page is the cost (not tuition) increase since 1982. Measuring different things from different starting points.
The index has 1978=100 (or is that 1970? The graphic is very vague on an iPad), the 439% is since 1982. Eying the graph, that 439% is about right (200-ish to 1100-ish is a factor of 5,5-ish, or about 450%)
1. it's an infographic, not intended as meaningful discourse.
2. It talks about tuition, which is a nonsense metric, since private (and to a lesser extent public) colleges offer steep discounts (aid). A meaningful analysis would report on actual payments.