You're quibbling over my use of "the population" when referring to a statistic which can only be represented by people in the age range of 22(ish) and up. While I was not being specific, the term "the population" in statistics, generally refers to the relevant population anyway. The USDA isn't going to hire 4 year olds, so they don't care about their educational levels.

More importantly, you're trying to pull at anything to distract from the point that you were wrong. DC is very educated, and KC is by comparison not.

victor809 wrote:

Someone was upset that I was calling the midwest less educated ....

....they left the argument once the statistics popped up.... and tail came in to try to argue against numbers. (and you said you thought he was smarter than that)

victor809 wrote:

So using your logic, it MUST be 30% of people who have a bachelors or better.

Because, again using your logic, you can't count adults who don't have a bachelors since they're not relevant.

And besides, the numbers support my initial claim.

https://www.towncharts.com/District-of-Columbia/Education/Washington-city-DC-Education-data.html 

May I refer you to figure 6.

tailgater wrote:

You spelled "prove victor wrong" incorrectly.

tailgater wrote:

Your arguing against the numbers, while correct, had absolutely no impact on the actual discussion.

(and you conveniently neglect to remember that you came in completely wrong, assuming the numbers were of the total population)

victor809 wrote:

My what?

tailgater wrote:

And no. I wasn't wrong by any definition of the term.

someone who still hasn't added anything to the actual discussion above wrote:

If you truly thought that your "population" was defined by age, then you'd have referenced that when I first interjected with my polite correction.

a wrong person wrote:

And it was polite.

You just hate being wrrrrr, wrrrrggg, wrgggrrr... incorrect.

a politely wrong person wrote:

So when we see stats like "percentage of people retired" in a certain area or state, I guess we should "assume" it means only those people over the age 65?

tailgater wrote:

And we can forget about the whole "percentage female" at schools.

someone flailing around grasping at straws wrote:

How about percentage of "population" that are multi millionaires?
I guess we should only count those who are millionaires or better. Because you can't include anyone worth less than a million, right?

a desperate person trying to make excuses for 1 stupid mistake wrote:

Silly, of course.

finally you get something right wrote:

Point being, I did politely correct with an obvious reference to "population" being too loosely defined.
But now that I've shown your stats to be wrong even when eliminating "kids", I'm surprised you're still trying to appear as if you were correct.
OK. Not surprised.

and you still go on, with this nonsense that had nothing to do with the discussion wrote:

And for the record, when I wrote "your what?", I did initially think you screwed up the grammar portion. I realized that wasn't the case prior to hitting send, but felt it was worth leaving because your structure was so abysmal. (I did get a chuckle hearing how you went through the same thought process above.)

and he keeps going... with more stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand wrote:

You two need to get a room!

rfenst wrote:

And for the record, I don't think I ever defended the education level in KC.
Here or anywhere else.
Ever.

And also for the record, wgaf?

intelligence is not directly related to education.

Sure, some people are too stupid to get a formal education.
But education is as much a result of desire, opportunity and access as it is intelligence.

In other words, it's rarely ability that keeps people from getting their masters.

In DC, it's almost a necessity if you want to succeed.
In our mid-America square states, not so much.

Who cares either way?

tailgater wrote:

I's gots'it me...

Two colllerge DEEEE- greeeee's...

And I dumpster dive fo' a livin' !!!

A SPECIAL SHOUT OUT TO THE :

FBI-SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE GROUP DIVISION...

FOR ALL THEIR HELP IN MY loWlY ENDEAVORS..
TANKS A PANT LOAD... YOU FELON BUMS...

Mr. Jones wrote: