I just realized that I don't know why people don't think research is really propaganda.
First why is research even published as it is, why not publish an Excel file of your data and let the readers interpret the results. when you consider the publications are directed to non-layman readers, they should have the ability to read the data.
And why is it students have to cite sources , who else does? I don't see professors or cab drivers citing sources.
Or better yet, why not put it in context, here is some info from the UB web site:
MLS Career Information
Summary of placement statistics for year 2000 DLIS graduates:
(Based on survey data N=38, total graduates = 109, and a 35% response rate)
* 95% are employed
* 79% are full-time
* Average salary was $34,815
* Maximum salary was $65,000 (employer = school)
There is no info on how they gathered the information, so I assume that it is the people who have jobs that respond. And just for the record, 35 percent is 38.15 people.
There is no definition of average, is it all the money added up that are working, or do they also include the people not making any money. Is the average salary calculate the part time employes into full time salary.
and the obvious question to me is: what are these stats for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. (After all, it is stated they do this every year!)
and how do I trust the statistics of anyone of the people I know, when I know they don't have the ability to analyze the data that is in front of their nose. I suggest to a professor that instead of just saying the answer is wrong - actually teach the right answer.
actually TEACH the right answer.
If someone doesn't know the answer and they can't figure out it is their function to educate, how can they understand what the function of abstract numbers.
I need some sleep
and less coffee