Somehow "Pittsburgh" doesn't turn up in a text search of the document, but it is listed as 86th on the list. I don't know why a text search misses it.
2010-12-03 18:08:38
7
OT - Statistics fun but we're left out
Ok, we'll ignore the fact that they defined "smart" as formal degrees + income. But they claim they included the 200 largest metro areas. Apparently, this includes Burlington, Vermont at 207,600 but not Pittsburgh at (wikipedia sourced) 311,647 [city, or 2,462,571 metro].
By my numbers, Burlington should get off the list and Pittsburgh should be on it (undoubtedly among others). Did I miss something? Or do we not count? I couldn't find a place to point out there error without signing up for some social media nonsense. So I figured I'd fume here, where the two other statistics geeks could sympathize 
2010-12-03 17:50:21
Statistics, nothin. "We took a number, divided it by another number, multiplied it by another number, chopped them all up into bits and dropped them in a blender with some unlabeled things we found in the spice cabinet, and left it on the counter overnight. In the morning, we cooked it. Here Mom, taste it!"
2010-12-03 18:16:58
d'oh, thank you Mick! Funny it's just above Binghamton, NY. Guy who sits next to me is from there.
I always figured we weren't as overeducated as some people claim.
2010-12-03 18:19:26
but Lyle, when you do that 200 times, that's a statistic!
2010-12-03 18:29:38
They used some dumb unicode symbol for the double tt in Pitt. If you search for "PiRsburgh" (or just "burgh") it finds it.
2010-12-03 18:30:32
I don't know what was wrong with ASCII anyway. A couple more years and even the Chinese would have switched to English.
2010-12-03 20:16:10