I don't, but when you title an article "How DOCTORS choose to die" (caps added for emphasis) you are making a generalization and supporting it with anecdote. I realize "Doctors' death stories" might be less attention-grabbing but more accurate. I did enjoy the article -- it resonated with me, but I still don't know if doctors choose to die any differently than the rest of us.
I thought this was thoughtful and well written but all I see is anecdote...there is no data presented that MDs choose different options than non-MD patients.
While quality of education varies with the professor, I would argue that it also varies with the student...possibly even more so.
Let's assume Instructor A teaches Introduction to Nordic Studies at a non-selective university. Two of the factors that control the design of that course (there are many, I'm just isolating two) would be:
-the instructor
-the students
In ideal conditions, the course iteratively develops into some dynamic equilibrium where aggregate student learning is optimal (yes, I realize this is fantasy).
Replace those non-selective students with students from a highly-selective university, while keeping the same instructor. Imagine how different the course might develop.
From a learning standpoint, if you are a student that is talented enough to be admitted to a highly-selective university, the latter course would likely result in you learning more.
In reality, there are a lot of other factors that impact the growth and development of any individual student, but all things being equal, if you are a smarty, you will probably learn more in a class with other smarties.
When you don't specify how far ahead in the future you are projecting these things to happen, technological innovations like "Robots Will Be Commonplace" are quite easy to predict. Especially when he appears to be lumping much of AI into the "robots" category.
I would much rather see a long form of this where he further explains why he makes these predictions and when he sees them happening. I'll readily admit I don't know what sells for the times but this opinion piece makes me feel like I just wasted time (I guess I probably shouldn't have commented on it as well to exacerbate the problem).
So you have roughly, a 27% ROI for your first year -- which seems good.
Have you accounted for:
Income tax?
Property tax?
Insurance costs?
Legal risks: (i.e., you potentially in violation of law)?
Liability risks: (i.e., something happens to a tenant)?
Property damage risks (may be included in cleanup costs)?
Labor costs (i.e., your time)?
Property value appreciation/depreciation (could be a positive)?
After that is all taken into account, I wonder if you end up netting more from a passive investment.
Given the vast amount of junky infographics, I generally agree with their philosophy. They do, however, seem to ignore some of the research on the value of chartjunk. Like this paper, which won a best paper award at CHI '10: http://hci.usask.ca/publications/view.php?id=173
Seconded. This is anecdotal evidence. If the poster is making it to interview I would be willing to wager that the interview itself is leading to the lack of success rather than the degree. In other words, if there was an inherent bias against doctorates then why would a company waste additional resources in an interview?