by Keith O'Brien. Less affluent areas see increase in teen births.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

the zak - 16 Mar 2008 18:07 GMT

by Keith O'Brien
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/16/less_affluent_areas_see_inc
rease_in_teen_births/
Less affluent areas see increase in teen births
But overall rate in Mass. on decline, state reports

Reply to this Message

Scott Ley - 18 Mar 2008 12:39 GMT

> by Keith O'Brien
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/16/less_affluent_areas_see_inc
rease_in_teen_births/
> Less affluent areas see increase in teen births
> But overall rate in Mass. on decline, state reports

Whew! Just look at that figure for the city of
Cambridge, Massachusetts! A "60.8%" increase!
(Though I have a feeling they meant more like
"+16.8%".)

Boston.com ought to be more careful with their
graphs!

Signature

Sincerely yours,
Scotty

P.S. http://scotty.secretsgolden.com

Reply to this Message

shenhe.polyioo@gmail.com - 20 Mar 2008 04:50 GMT

> > by Keith O'Brien
> >http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/16/less_affluent_ar...
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> P.S.http://scotty.secretsgolden.com

No, they mean a 60.8% increase.
Think of it this way: Going from 3 to 6 is a 100% increase. Since they
were already at a very low number (under 10), it took very little
change to make it a big percentage increase.

This is how the CEO of company that only sold 10 cars last year can
put out a press release stating they have had a 20% increase in sales
after selling 12 cars this year. Now the CEO is worth his $500k
salary, right?

He
poly-ioo.com

Reply to this Message

Scott Ley - 20 Mar 2008 09:50 GMT

>> > by Keith O'Brien
>> >http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/16/less_affluent_ar...
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> He
> poly-ioo.com

Thank you, He, you are right. I stand
corrected. AND a big "sorry 'bout that"
to...

Boston.com!

Signature

Sincerely yours,
Scotty

P.S. http://scotty.secretsgolden.com

Reply to this Message

Doctroid - 21 Mar 2008 15:24 GMT

In article
<dd73890c-5789-432e-988b-707b828a4dd6@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

> > > by Keith O'Brien
> > >http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/16/less_affluent_ar...
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> were already at a very low number (under 10), it took very little
> change to make it a big percentage increase.

Cambridge, MA had a population of just over 100,000 in 2000 (Wikipedia).
Figuring half of that is female and very roughly 5% of that is ages
15-19, there are 2500 girls in that age range (I almost said 'age rage',
psychoanalyze that) in Cambridge. From the graph the birth rate looks
like it went from about 7 per 1000 to about 10 per 1000, but that's only
a 3/7 = 43% increase. So maybe it was closer to 6.5 per 1000 to 10.5 per
1000 -- that is, from about 16 to about 26 births, an increase of about
10 births. From counting statistics that's about 16 +- 4 to 26 +- 5 and
the difference is 10 +- 6.4. So Cambridge's 60.8% increase is
statistically insignificant at just over 1.5 sigma.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out the statistical
significance of the increases and decreases in the other cities shown,
but I'll hazard a guess as to the answer: little to none. (Hint: Look
at Boston, the one really big city in the list.)

Signature

Oh, hey, I just noticed my sig disappeared. Another consequence of the
Great Hard Drive Crash of '07.

Someone send me a new one.

Reply to this Message

Pitui Terrington - 21 Mar 2008 16:46 GMT

From counting statistics that's about 16 +- 4 to 26 +- 5 and

> the difference is 10 +- 6.4. So Cambridge's 60.8% increase is
> statistically insignificant at just over 1.5 sigma.
>
> I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out the statistical
> significance of the increases and decreases in the other cities shown,
> but I'll hazard a guess as to the answer: little to none.

Knock it off Doctroid! You KNOW statistics talk makes me all hot
and bothered.

Reply to this Message