« Doctoring charts | Main | Maps and dots 2 »

Comments

derek

Sticking fat fingers on paper to count dots is frustrating. Simple bars allow readers to compare relative strength with less effort.

That's not a fair like-for-like comparison of the two objects. "How hard is it to compare relative strength of dot chains?" or "how hard is it to count integer bar length?" should be the test. The answers respectively are "no harder than reading a bar" and "nearly impossible".

The dot chain can be made arbitrarily close in design to a bar; if you don't like the roundness of a dot, then a square or a 2x1 rectangle are attractive alternatives. This makes a slighting comparison of the two objects pointless.

The only regime in which a dot chain really does not make any sense is where the quantity displayed is in real numbers instead of integers, or when the integers are so large they may as well be.

Go Maroons!

I realize that you are highlighting the organization of the data and not commenting on the data themselves, but I have to point out that this chart seems to be somewhat incomplete. The University of Chicago, with its 50+ Nobel affiliates, is not listed! Being an alum, that was the first one I looked for.

RichardJ

In the junkart version because of the orientation of the bars I can't easily compare across the institutions, which seems the main point. Apart from legend difficulties it might work better if the bars were vertical.

I'm not sure what the data is meant to be telling me in any case --- these institutions are different sizes, have different specialities and have different budgets. Surely you'd need to equalize for these factors before comparing them? Institution X may have no Nobel prizes because it didn't win one or because it didn't do any work that would qualify, i.e. it's not their specialism. Without knowing the difference between zero awards and "not entered" the data is difficult to draw conclusions from.

derek

I'm not sure what the data is meant to be telling me in any case

We can try to get a message from the text in Wired:

The state of science education may be declining in the US, but Americans still win most of the world's top science prizes. In the past two decades, [...] US institutions have received at least three of the major awards [...] compared with just six non-US entities. And of the 128 individual accolades given to US faculty, only a quarter were presented to noncitizens. But because the number of science and engineering PhDs handed out in the US has stagnated over the past decade, it doesn't take a Nobel-winning statistician to predict that this map will look very different by 2027s

So the takeaway messages seem to be: go USA!, most prizes going to US citizens, and some words about change. A presentation of the data that supported these messages would have aggregated all the US prizes; the breakdown by institution seems to be excessive detail that doesn't add context. It would also present the citien/non-citizen data (this is present in the map as open circles). Finally the breakdown that would have been useful, instead of institution, would have been a time series, since the article talks about change but does not back up any of its claims in that area (even the remark about "stagnant PhD" is vague and unquantified).

The comments to this entry are closed.

BOOTCAMP SUMMER '19



Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues