This continues a proud tradition of mathematicians whose area of expertise is nowhere near statistics writing newspaper pieces saying that statistical sampling in censuses a good idea; Brian Conrad, 1998, New York Times.

In some sense it carries more weight when mathematicians who

*don't*spend most of their time battling randomness in some sort or another . Statisticians of course think that doing statistical adjustments to the census in order to make it more accurate is a Good Idea; it gets them, their students, or their friends jobs!

As a combinatorialist I admire the theoretical elegance of our country's once-a-decade exercise in large-scale, brute-force combinatorics. But in practice, well, of course it needs some statistical help.

And here's something interesting:

Since 1970, a mail-in survey has provided the majority of census data, so what we enumerate is not people but numbers written on a form, which are as likely to be fictional as any statistical estimate.I wonder if people are actually lying on their census forms. I suspect this would skew the count upwards. People who deliberately lie on their census forms, at least the sort of people I know, are likely to give "joke" answers. And

*large*numbers are funnier. I live in a one-bedroom apartment, and if I were the sort of person who lied on government forms I would easily say that ten people live in my apartment. I can't give a comically

*low*number of people living here, because the census insists that a positive integer number of people live in each place. Does the census has some sort of way to correct for this?

## 2 comments:

This doesn't directly address your questions, but on the old long form (now replaced by the American Community Survey), you can discern a certain small percentage of folks having a little fun with their answers. E.g. people reporting that they commute "by personal watercraft" in an area without any navigable waters...

I so look forward to the day when a

femalealgebraic geometer gets invited to write about statistics in theNew York Times.Post a Comment