$64k is a great salary in my area of PA. I’m not familiar with GA but I imagine it’s the same. To put this into comparison, the average household income in GA is $75k and most households are two earners, so yeah, seems pretty good.
Which part? Can you explain your reasoning in a way that’s not just “nuh-uh”?
As I understand it, an average is when you add together several quantities and then divide that total by the number of quantities. How does this in any way affect actual living wage (or grades, in my given example)?
Just knowing that the average is 50 does not in any way tell you the grades of the majority of the class. Most of the kids could be passing while a few abysmal performers bring the average down.
That’s what you take issue with? That the analogy isn’t completely perfect? Do you get the general idea of what I’m saying, or does that slight inconsistency complete negate the entire argument?
The point is that an average isn’t indicative of overall health… it’s just a value representing the average income. It makes no bearing on actual economic health without comparing it to other factors.
The irony of not having a basic understanding of averages while talking about education.
Actually, you not understanding how averages work and then getting defensive when people corrected you is a pretty good argument for why we need to pay teachers more. Touché.
$64k is a great salary in my area of PA. I’m not familiar with GA but I imagine it’s the same. To put this into comparison, the average household income in GA is $75k and most households are two earners, so yeah, seems pretty good.
Now do it with average households with college degrees, since that’s a more reasonable comparison.
Just because something is average doesn’t mean it’s good.
If the average grade of a class is fifty… that doesn’t mean it’s a good grade. It just means a majority of the class is failing.
That’s… not how averages work.
Which part? Can you explain your reasoning in a way that’s not just “nuh-uh”?
As I understand it, an average is when you add together several quantities and then divide that total by the number of quantities. How does this in any way affect actual living wage (or grades, in my given example)?
Just knowing that the average is 50 does not in any way tell you the grades of the majority of the class. Most of the kids could be passing while a few abysmal performers bring the average down.
That’s what you take issue with? That the analogy isn’t completely perfect? Do you get the general idea of what I’m saying, or does that slight inconsistency complete negate the entire argument?
The point is that an average isn’t indicative of overall health… it’s just a value representing the average income. It makes no bearing on actual economic health without comparing it to other factors.
The irony of not having a basic understanding of averages while talking about education.
Actually, you not understanding how averages work and then getting defensive when people corrected you is a pretty good argument for why we need to pay teachers more. Touché.
No, it wasn’t about perfection. It was about you being wrong.
It’s ok to just reflect and try to do better next time instead of dig in and defend a mistake. It’s how we grow.
The average GPA is 2.75. At 50% I would guesstimate 90% of kids are failing school. Usually 70% is passing. Where did the 50% "fifty"come from?