« A second lease on life | Main | Comment on a comment »



Very well-written post. ALthough I did have a clue about what "controlled for" ment, you have explained in a very clear way within the context of this statistics. Thanks!

Jon Peltier

Well done. When I saw the original graphic, I was thinking of ways to slice the data differently.

The only thing left out of each analysis is what percentage of each level of student is present at each class of college.


This blog makes frequent claims of self-sufficiency, so for this post I tried a little experiment. Without reading the Times article or graphic, and without reading the blog post, I went straight to the Junk Charts redesigned chart to see if I could decipher it.

The Junk Chart plots "College Selectivity" against "Ability Levels", each on an apparently arbitrary 1-4 scale. I assumed ability levels referred to college students, but could not figure out what the chart was trying to show. I first guessed admission or application rates, but the percentages seemed much too high. Something to do with college enrollment, maybe? Or maybe ability has something to do with physical ability versus disability?

Finally I gave up and looked at the Times graphic. Only then did I understand what the Junk Chart version was trying to show.

Does the Times graphic pass a real-world self-sufficiency test? Yes, it explains a coherent set of data, and the viewer does not need to look elsewhere or read anything else to understand it. Does the Junk Charts version pass the same self-sufficiency test? No, the chart doesn't even have a title, so even after several minutes of staring at it I was unable to understand what it was trying to show.

This is an example of a recurring pattern at Junk Charts: visual displays of information that are only legible if you read the accompanying blog post. The chart claims self-sufficiency but is meaningless without a long written explanation telling readers what it shows and how good it is.

I fail to see how an incomplete and illegible redesign can be seriously considered an improvement over the original graphic. The Junk Charts version is ugly and incompetently produced, with confusing and arbitrary labels, and as an information display it cannot stand alone. If the Junk Chart version actually ran in the paper it would look like a mistake and completely confuse readers. By any measure it is a failure.

You should try making a complete graphic sometime, one that is truly self-sufficient and legible without 600 words of annotation. These hypothetical redesigns are an embarrassment.


All the reworked graph needs is a bit of work to make it apparent that the four lines represent different abilities. Maybe just coloured lines and a clearer legend.

A would try a clustered bar chart. Some people don't like them, but here it would probably work well.

Jon Peltier

All Kaiser's chart requires is changing "Ability Levels" to "Student Ability Levels" and a label indicating that the vertical axis measures Graduation Rates.

Should he have included these labels? Sure. Is their omission cause for panning the entire blog? Come on.

John Munoz

Hi Kaiser,

You're doing great work here, keep it up!

It takes only minutes to put together a bad chart, but it can take hours, even days to put together a great chart. The Times' doughnuts weren't in keeping with their typically excellent visualizations and you rightly pointed that out and offered an alternative.

Your critiques of most charts are spot on, generally helpful, and written in a positive tone, which I find more productive than taking someone to task for a pie chart. It's so easy to bash the bad stuff (and there's no shortage of junkcharts out there), but it takes real fortitude to show people how to turn trash into treasure.

-John Munoz

Michael MacAskill

J, it seems your entire critique is could be summed up by "the y axis on this graph is missing a title". That would have been a fair comment. But from that one error, you trash the entire blog?

I second John Munoz' comment above. Keep up the good work. It clearly takes a lot of time and effort to produce each post, but very little to launch an unreasonable (and anonymous) attack.

Michael MacAskill
Regular reader

Dave Nash

This is a great blog full of thoughtful analysis. Good graphics are hard work and these discussions, whether I agree or not, are a tremendous help to my thinking.


I agree that these particular small multiples were not effective, but I am concerned about the use of the continuous line to connect the categories. I dont' feel that these types of lines should be used unless we have not only strict continuity, but dependence, meaning the same system is responding as such, and not a collection of independent ones, in this case, thousands of independent students. You might have stated that the lines are curve estimations, but they aren't really,
points are just being connected. I feel that the average viewer will miss that point. There is no question that the re-interpretation is effective, but is it true to the data? Ultimately a language needs to be developed to handle these kinds of issues. At the moment we can only do our best


Great blog full of thoughtful analysis. Good graphics are hard work and these discussions.


ManData: Your point is brought up every time I do this sort of plot. There are many people who agree with you in reserving line charts for continuous data. I don't subscribe to this custom... I treat these as "profile plots" and the name gives the intended purpose, which is to compare the profile of different groups, with profile taking a very general meaning. It's certainly not natural but I would love to see more usage. Only through use will readers learn about such charts!

H. Simpson

Donuts: is there anything they can't do?
-Homer Simpson


Regarding showing of each subgroup vs. the whole in the final chart with an explanation, I think that showing each segment (I suppose you could think of them as "ability quartiles", although the number of students in each group is not noted) adds to the strength of the conclusion. This roughly follows the Tufte-esque principle of increasing the detail to clarify.

Markin Ambuh

I read three times but still cannot understand. This donut thing is complicated.

The comments to this entry are closed.


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