WHILE LISTENING

While listening to a great composite CD recently received, here are a few humble observations.

I won't reveal the subject matter as I fear you'll close the blog and rush to open the spam instructing us as to how we can spy on our kids. But, please stick with me here.

Previous blogs have addressed the "incredible world of statistics" and my experience with the college courses so named.

My first exposure to same was when I was struggling to grab that elusive piece of parchment that was guaranteed to lead me on the way to fame and fortune.

I belatedly discovered I lacked one course to graduate. That course was statistics 101 - a two semester course.

In my infinite youthful wisdom at the time I had somehow managed to complete my struggles through the second semester part - but, had never enrolled for the first semester of the course.

The statistics professor, patiently - and not without appropriate amusement - listened to me pleading my case to have the first part waived. However, in so doing it became obvious he appeared not to comprehend my desperate need to graduate and grasp that promised golden ring.

Perhaps it had something to do with his review of my previous struggle with the second semester part of his course and my final grade. He turned an almost deaf ear to my pleadings.

However, he promised me that if I attended every class my final semester he would award me at least a "D" grade - so I could begin my promised journey down the yellow brick road.

Both of us were true to our word. As promised,I fearlessly entered the world of permutations, combinations, and probabilities.

About 25 years later - after enrolling in the Masters program at the same university - dedicated to receiving no grade lower than "A" - I discovered the awarding of my degree included a demonstration of my mastery of Graduate statistics.

My first stop was at the Men's room.

Then (again) , I went to my NEW statistics professor and confessed I had no clue as to what it was he was teaching. After listening to my sad story his only fatherly advice was, "Stick to it and you are going to be pleasantly surprised."

He was right! I became fascinated by my "new world of statistics", which he had carefully plotted during those early classes. I'm proud to say my grade was an "A" and it was earned honestly.

The man had a gift as an instructor and also as the author of a well respected book on the subject of statistics. More impressive was that there was no accompanying requirement to purchase his book.

Yeah, we had yet another paper to complete but it was on a statistical subject of our choosing. It had to include detailed graphs, numerous footnotes and the requirement that we must prove our conclusions.

I loved it. The course was fascinating and perhaps the most enjoyable one I had experienced at both educational levels.

We took actual published statistical studies and broke down the author's conclusions as we explored the flawed world of statistical studies.

I remain convinced that it should have been a required subject for undergraduate studies as well.

We are fascinated by all the statistics we hear or about which we read. They claim to have made an infallible conclusion as to which foods are good for us, the current demographics of population diversity, their conclusive projections as to weather, the economy, the unemplyment in 2013, and even who will win the Super Bowl.

There is a reason that some of us still wrap our garbage in newspapers.

I refuse to accept the latest "no question" published statistical studies on nutrition until I run across one praising the health and life extending benefits of hot fudge sundaes.

Then, and only then, may I become a true believer.

The front page of this morning's USA Today contained the results of a recent political survey. Much was made as to the results of the survey of 808 cooperative folks.

Details of the makeup of the population surveyed, whether they were gainfully employed, the actual phrasing of questions posed, our possible curiosity as to why the numbers did not add up to 100% (easily explained) and several other variables bound to appeal to even the least casual fan of statistics were not explained to us.

What WAS being touted as newsworthy was the statistical differences between the possible candidates should they be the actual opponents in November.

The results of the comparative survey was allegedly to determine who we were most likely to vote for in November.

The conclusion was, in a race between Romney and Obama -the "prez"would receive 46% and the former governor of Mass. 50% - a difference of "4%".

Should the participants be Obama and Santorum, the results would be Obama: 49% and the proliferate spender from Penna: 48% - a difference of just 1%.

It was only in the fine print at the end of the inset revealing the results that it was revealed the margin of error was "plus or minus 4% points' It could be off by as much as 4 percentage points either way.

If we accomplish nothing else in the education and raising of our kids - it is imperative we teach them to read critically.

And, along the way, we might learn something ourselves.