[dahart]

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’ve said next to nothing that is verifiable and haven’t included any links to references or stats in your rant, so with nothing verifiable, you’ve left me with no choice but to mostly ignore the comment. FWIW, using words like ‘lies’ and ‘fraud’ and ‘junk science’ are all red flags to me and make it sound like you have more of a bone to pick than an objective viewpoint. I have no idea what your experience is, it’s not possible for me to minimize it intentionally, and I’m sincerely sorry you feel that way as it’s not my intention, but it should be as obvious to you as it is to me that your experience could have deviated from the norm, maybe you were unlucky. In any case I’m left completely unconvinced by your argument that there’s anything missing from the Fed’s statistics relating to weeder classes that affects the broad outcomes of students. Even part of your explanation, under-represented metrics, is exactly what I suggested as well. Maybe the weeder classes aren’t experienced by most people, and therefore aren’t detrimental to the overall outcomes, in average. Or- and your wall of text failed to consider this possibility- that weeder classes are affecting outcomes negatively, and the outcomes would be even better without such classes. It’s possible that you’re right and the statistics are also right.