WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102800024.html

Relevant quote:
[ QUOTE ]
Among bachelor's degree recipients in 1999-2000, the College Board said in its report, those who began their studies at four-year public colleges and universities took an average of 6.2 years to earn a degree. Those who began at four-year private institutions took an average of 5.3 years to graduate.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I have some pretty lazy friends, but over the course of my entire college career I've maybe met half a dozen people who take more than five years to get a degree.

6.2??? No way in hell that's anywhere near right. And these are the same morons who are writing the SAT...I always knew the college board was a sham.

(BTW, I originally found this in US News and World Reports, so this is an X-ref)

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

T50,

Maybe it includes people who start and go back, lifelong learners etc?

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

Real ballas do their BS and MA in 4 years total.

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
T50,

Maybe it includes people who start and go back, lifelong learners etc?

[/ QUOTE ]It must include these types. Not that that's any sort of excuse, however. Any thinking person who reviews these articles before publication should have seen it and thought "that can't be right, there must be something messed up about that statistic" and omitted it. I guess it goes to show you that our media is much more concerned about shock value and startling readers than it is about coherence or honesty.

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
T50,

Maybe it includes people who start and go back, lifelong learners etc?

[/ QUOTE ]It must include these types. Not that that's any sort of excuse, however. Any thinking person who reviews these articles before publication should have seen it and thought "that can't be right, there must be something messed up about that statistic" and omitted it. I guess it goes to show you that our media is much more concerned about shock value and startling readers than it is about coherence or honesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the stat is 100% correct despite your factless assumption that it is impossible?

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

This doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me.

Re: WTF is up with this stupid statistic?
 

I can't figure out why this stat makes you so mad.