!Good Morning! I write to you in full flood of surveys with a dozen fresh surveys. But, in addition, today I bring statistics of schools, books and football.
The polls in Portugal were good. I warned you. Have you been sent this newsletter? Sign up here. Trick: Add our address to your agenda to prevent the newsletter from ending in spam by mistake.1. Lots of surveys 📊
Since Sunday, a dozen polls have been published confirming trends that we had already seen. The novelty is that now we can also join United We can. The average is like this:RELATED
☀️Open the PP. Their polls in September have been particularly good: according to IMOP data for El Confidencial, 15% of Citizen voters and 10% of Vox would now vote for PP.☀️More Country points to 5%. They are good data, although tentative. It also clarifies the origin of its voters: it receives as many votes from the PSOE as we can. Podemos️Vox is a mystery. It suffered a sharp downturn after the April elections (in the European ones, just a month later, it did not exceed 6.2% of votes), but later it has been recovering. Pablo Iglesias' party had good data after the summer, but now he loses votes in favor of More Country. The match reached 32% in August, but now around 28%. The Socialists accuse two blows: they pay the price of repeating the elections and lose voters because of the Errejón effect. ☔ Citizens keep falling. It is the party that will be worse off in the electoral repetition, probably. You can lose a third of your votes and you are leaking in all directions.
These trends are found by almost all pollsters. You can see it in the graph, where I have represented the change of each game since summer according to seven sources (GAD3, Sociometric, Electopanel, Invymark, Celeste-Tel and Simple Logic).
The left loses advantage. Another key fact of these elections is the balance between ideological blocks. It seems that the advantage of the left could be narrowing:
Since 28-A the sum of the left (PSOE, Podemos, Compromís and Más País) has dominated by 3 or 4 points to the sum of rights (PP, Citizens and Vox). But the electoral call has reduced that difference to 2 or 3 points.
2. Schools of the rich, schools of the poor 🚸
Public and concerted schools are segregated by social class. I told Daniele Grasso and Borja Andrino this weekend, using data from 20,000 schools and 33,000 students.
Concerted and private schools have students from favored families. It is not a surprise, but it is valuable to measure it:
Public centers have 27% of disadvantaged students (belonging to 20% of students with a lower socioeconomic status, according to the synthetic indicator used by PISA). Only one in 10 belongs to the richest 20%. In private only 2% of students are from disadvantaged families and up to 56% are children of upper class families (20% with higher socioeconomic status). agreed only 11% belong to the disadvantaged group.
But beware: within the public there is also segregation. The public network has more heterogeneous students, but that does not mean that each school is heterogeneous. It is not the case.
Look at the public schools that appear in purple in the chart below. In the right panel, which represents the highest class colleges, there are hardly any children of low socioeconomic status. In the panel on the left, that of disadvantaged schools, what is missing are upper class children. We are seeing class segregation among public schools.
Segregation has several reasons, but one is especially complex: "the families' own demand to socialize at school with their peers," as Lucas Gortazar, World Bank education specialist, explains.
3. Order of magnitude: speak, write, read ⠼⠙⠓⠁⠑
+ You speak at 39 bits per second. There are languages that are spoken quickly (such as Spanish) and slower languages (such as German), but the speed with which they transmit information is a universal constant: we express ourselves at 39 bits per second. The paradox is explained by compression. Spanish contains less information in each syllable, and to compensate, we speak running.
Would a German who spoke very fast emit a lot of bits? Yes, but it would not work. The limit of 39 bits / s is not a restriction of the person speaking, but of the listener. Our brain cannot process information faster. | Science
+ We write very fast on mobile. People who use only one hand reach 29 words per minute (ppm), but those who use two get to write up to 38 ppm. That's a lot. It is close to 52 ppm that most of us are able to type with a full keyboard. | The Guardian
+ Do people no longer read? Maybe we read more than before. 67% of Spaniards say they have read a book in the last quarter, compared to 60% who said the same thing in 2010. Frequent readers and the number of books we have at home also increase. The percentage of people who read something – books, magazines, blogs, social networks, newspapers, etc. – has gone from 90% to 96%. | Editors
4. A random data: 10.4% 🏈
I don't know anything about American football, but this visualization is spectacular. It represents a complete play: the Bears quarterback finds a gap between two defenses to make a 33-meter throw. According to Next Gen Stats, he only had a 10.4% chance of being converted and was the most difficult successful pass so far this season. | Axios Sports
Next Gen Stats is an NFL project. They capture in real time the speed and acceleration of each player on the field, using sensors that they carry on the shoulder pads. Then they combine that information with a statistical model that estimates the probability of each play. In this video you can see the system in action.
If you like the newsletter, forward it to your contacts! You can sign up here. The newsletter is sent every Wednesday and is open to everyone. If you have comments or suggestions, you can write directly to the email: [email protected]