<p>Arador</p>
<p>Yes, the last line may have been over the top/mean and I am regretting its insertion, but that shouldn’t distract you from the main points.</p>
<p>1) The issue isn’t about advocacy, but rather saying you’re being descriptive and without opinions (as ID did) but use stats that may be out of context and misrepresentative.</p>
<p>2) Regarding the PhD lists, have you actually crunched the numbers or do you just assume they’re right? For example, if you do the language PhD #s as I have, you will see that the difference in #8 (Yale) to #18 (Haverford) is 15 more PhDs out of 15,000 people. How can that qualify as a significant difference worthy of a 10 place “drop”? There are clear distinctions between colleges and that should be discussed… not stats with spurious conclusions to bolster your arguments.</p>
<p>3) If you talk about other colleges (as ID does) and want to use them as a comparison, you should understand them. “The numbers can mean this… but is there another explanation?” Yes, being analytical makes comparisons more difficult but at the same time more accurate and fair as well. That is why I avoid comparing college #s. </p>
<p>4) ID wanted to know why some people didn’t like his posts. I think it’s useful to point out, especially if it’s unintentional, that some of the stuff he writes can be interpreted as being a little dismissive. That is how one becomes a better writer… by hearing critiques (just like I acknowledged yours). If ID wants to be less abrasive or better understood, then this is one area for him to target if he chooses.</p>
<p>good night.</p>