The Economist recently posted an online article about which business schools rank highest on the global chart. The ranks are defined by the average income of students who have graduated and are gainfully employed in the business world.

The chart does not only show the rank of a certain school and average income. It is riddled with other variables that are taken in to account during the ranking process, for example the mean work experience of students defined in years.

The chart can get somewhat confusing due to all the numbers, but in this case I don’t think they will loose the reader. The average individual that reads The Economist, I would imagine, is probably the number savvy type. You know… like an Economist.

Their demographic of readers probably feels more enlightened to information that has a heavy emphasis on mathematical data. However, I did find it odd that some of the groups of students from said schools had a different “mean of work experience”. I would think that in order to get more accurate information, only students with the same amount of work experience would be analyzed in order to combat extraneous outliers from marring data.

It is the same concept that we discussed in class concerning whether or not to use mean or median. If one group has 5 more years of work experience than the other, then I don’t think they are “statistically equal”.

For The Economist it is okay to use such a chart. If this information was to be used by the local news it would have to be more simplified in order to connect with a broader group of consumers.