Student Drop-Out Rates...why?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:LT5Pe.303876$xm3.74600@attbi_s21...
It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't afford
it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it, desire
and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those
who can afford it.

WHY?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The same reason that people have different favorite colors...personal
preference. I'm sure bungie jumpers can't understand why everyone doesn't
bungie jump either.

Mike
MU-2

Jay Honeck wrote:

WHY?

Same reason some people are meat bombs and some are wuffos.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On 2005-08-24, Jay Honeck wrote:
It doesn't matter how desirable something is to someone who can't afford
it or how affordable something is to someone who doesn't want it, desire
and resources have to match. Aviation doesn't appeal to many of those who
can afford it.

WHY?

Aviation doesn't appeal, period.

Being in the air is NOT our natural habitat. I'm coming more to the
conclusion that myself and my fellow pilots, aviators, skydivers
(particularly skydivers), hang glider pilots, glider pilots - any sort
of aviator at all, aren't really wired quite the same way as everyone
else.

Everyone else instincively knows that being more than a few feet AGL is
not natural and rather dumb, and only tolerate airline travel because
it's the only way to get some places and you are so insulated fand
distracted from the actual going up in the air bit, they can ignore for
a few hours that they are not firmly attached to the ground. Anything
that reminds them of this (the tiniest bit of turbulence, for example)
makes them anxious (and makes some of them whimper). We didn't evolve as
an airborne species. It is totally alien. To subject yourself to this
voluntarily is, in the subconscious lizard-mind totally insane. So they
don't do it.

There is only a tiny proportion of the population who doesn't
subconsicously find the idea of flying around many thousands of feet
from their natural habitat deeply disturbing. When an aviator stands on
top of a large hill, at least part of them is thinking "Wouldn't it be
cool to run down here with a hang-glider...". When a normal person
stands on top of a big hill, they think "It'd really suck to trip right
now". At least subconsicously.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article ,
Roger wrote:

I would
*guess* there are far more households making less than the median that
there are making more.

huh?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.

In fact the average income is higher, because it's pulled up by the very
wealthy households making millions per year, and that's not offset by
households making negative income (we don't allow individuals to rack up
millions in debt -- only corporations). The mathematical average might be
around $60k or even higher.

Seth

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:31:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

If I could do it, anyone can do it.

Bull.
The median income in the U.S. today is about $50,000. *LOTS* of people in
the
States cannot afford flight training. Many more regard it as a complete
waste of
money, and for them, it probably would be.

Yes, I agree with you that there are a lot of people who can not
afford flight training and most of them are not in a position to
expect to do so later on. I'm excluding that portion of the
population/work force in college or just a year or two out.

What's the average? I would expect the average to be quite a bit
below the median as there are just a few very high incomes that skew
the median up. The last Census (2000) put the household median at
$41,994 so I'd expect it to be close to $50,000 now. There is a 2002
survey that put it a bit over $42,000

What is exasperating is trying to find the average rather than the
middle number or median. The US keeps household income compared to a
median. Canada keeps it according to average. Whether higher or lower
the average is a much more meaningful number than median. I would
*guess* there are far more households making less than the median that
there are making more.

After nearly an hour and a half trying to find the average US income I
have given up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:36:04 -0700, "Seth Masia"
wrote:

Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.

That sounds like an average rather than a median.
If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
order the number in the middle would be the median.


In fact the average income is higher, because it's pulled up by the very
wealthy households making millions per year, and that's not offset by

That would pull the median up more than the average.
Average is the total income of all the households divided by the
number of households. One family making $500,000,000 against several
million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
and a big hit on median.

households making negative income (we don't allow individuals to rack up
millions in debt -- only corporations). The mathematical average might be
around $60k or even higher.

snip

Jay Honeck wrote:

If I could do it, anyone can do it.


There are many people out there who should never get near an airplane
and many who are just not mentally or physically equipped to think in
three dimensions safely.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

That sounds like an average rather than a median.

No, that's the definition of median.

One family making $500,000,000 against several
million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
and a big hit on median.

Nope. Backwards.

The "median" is the value of the sample in the middle. If you take the
highest number and increase it by a factor of a bazillion, the median is
unchanged.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Roger wrote:

If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
order the number in the middle would be the median.

Correct.

Average is the total income of all the households divided by the
number of households. One family making $500,000,000 against several
million in the $40,000 range would have little effect on the average
and a big hit on median.

Nope. If you had two families making $20,000, one making $40,000, and two making
$80,000, the median would be $40,000 and the average would be $48,000. If one of
those top-earners gets a raise to $100,000, the median is still $40,000, but the
average goes up to $52,000.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:36:23 -0400, Roger
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:36:04 -0700, "Seth Masia"
wrote:

Umm -- the definition of median is that half the range is higher and half is
lower. This means that if the median is $42,000, and there are 100 million
households, then 50 million households make more than $42k.

That sounds like an average rather than a median.
If you take the lowest number income to the highest and put them in
order the number in the middle would be the median.

This is correct only if "the number in the middle" means half of the
sequence of numbers are below it and half are above it. Such a
"median" may or may not also be the "mean".

Jim wrote:

This is correct only if "the number in the middle" means half of the
sequence of numbers are below it and half are above it.

Actually half the numbers are less than or equal to it and half are greater than
or equal to it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.