Unnecessary ObfuscationReader comment on: The War on For-Profit Education Submitted by John Beck (United States), Nov 14, 2010 23:27 This paragraph: There are no comparison figures given for percentages of revenue from government sources for other universities. Right under the Times's nose in New York City, for example, there exists something called the City University of New York, which gets 50% of its funding from taxpayers of the state of New York, and 11% from taxpayers of the City of New York. Of the remaining 39% that comes from tuition payments, $329 million of it came from federal Pell Grants. Is uninstructive. You use percentages up until the end, but by not telling us what that $329 million is a percentage of, we cannot make a comparison. If it's $329 million out of $1 billion, then it's scandalous that for-profit schools take a larger percentage of funding from the federal government than not-for-profit. if it's $329 million out of $330 million, then it's incredibly scandalous how little comes from non-governmental sources. Why do you switch gears like that? Why do you deliberately obstruct the ability for the reader to make informed comparisons by changing the measurement metric in mid 'graph? While I want to agree with your article, you're engaging in tactics quite similar to those at the NYT which you decry: using a big scary number in place of a number with which the reader can make meaningful comparison. Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing. Submit a comment on this article Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item |
Follow Us On:
ADVERTISEMENT |
