Well it would be me who hurls the first fly in the nice thread ointment.
I can't say interesting. Well I could. But what I'd mean is "interesting, if interesting means the same as worrying".
It looks like something that somebody will bring up as "evidence" in the comments on CIF comments/public debate forums when HE is the dish of the day. Closely followed by the anti-HEers (on and off piste) pissing themselves laughing about confirmation bias, lack of critical thinking skills etc. and using it as a stick to beat all HEers with.
From the link
Limitation of the Survey
A major limitation of this study, of course, is that the participants are a self-selected sample, not a random sample, of grown unschoolers. As already noted, relatively few men responded to the survey. A bigger problem is that the sample may disproportionately represent those who are most pleased with their unschooling experiences and their subsequent lives. Indeed, it seems quite likely that those who are more pleased about their lives would be more eager to share their experiences, and therefore more likely to respond to the survey, than those who are less pleased. Therefore, this study, by itself, cannot be a basis for strong claims about the experiences and feelings of the whole population of unschoolers.
Quite. Peter Grey, much beloved and so oft quoted by American unschoolers, recruits survey subjects from his blog, which is hosted on a popular magazine that is sometimes confused with an academic journal. The limitations he outlines (set aside what anybody less invested in unschooling might note as limitations) are so ... limiting.. that I am not sure how the positive results he got were anything other than wholly inevitable.
Unschoolers who liked unschooling and still like unschooling follow blog of well known unschooling expert and report good things about unschooling.
I dislike this lack of moving on beyond "here's yet another limited study/survey that was bound to show decent results". It's unintentional, but it can all too easily act as a confirmation of suspicions to anti-HEers, i.e. that "bound by design to get good results" are the only kind of study we like, because it's the only way we can get non scary results.
Unfortunately with it's happy table of results, it is exactly the shiny bit of "evidence" that somebody will be stung into linking to as evidence to support their beliefs. It's not rare for people to link first and read properly later, especially when prodded into providing "proof" of what they claim for their educational choices in a heated debate.
What the study does unambiguously show, however, is that it is possible to take the unschooling route and then go on to a highly satisfying adult life. For the group who responded to our survey, unschooling appears to have been far more advantageous than disadvantageous in their pursuits of higher education, desired careers, and other meaningful life experiences
Except, in the link I can't see where he strongly underlines the limitations in collecting accurate information via a self selecting survey and the difficulties in verifying information received. Or how their protocols set out to validate, confirm, evaluate and rate self reported claims re higher ed, employment, being an entrepreneur. etc.
People over egg and/or lie. They do it about their qualifications and previous work experience when applying for jobs, even when they know there is a risk somebody might try to confirm their claims and sanctions can result if fibbing took place.
On a survey with no sanctions aside from exclusion from results...I'd say the risk was much higher.
On a survey where some may have an emotional need to "support" an educational choice they are practising/intend to practice with their own kids.. I'd say the risk was higher still.
In addition bald terms like higher ed, entrepreneur etc can act like a trap door in terms of what Tilly was talking about. The devil is in the detail.
(ie what she was saying about a number of GCSEs that are almost exclusively in subjects perceived as "soft", "extras" or "non essential" being a different outcome from the same number/grades in maths, english lang, a humanity, a MFL and a DA in science.)
Entrepreneur could mean anything from the next Richard Branson to somebody who opened a shop on Etsy, and after several years has sold three knitted wombs for a total profit of ..$3.50.
Not all Higher Ed is created equal. You can do remedial English and maths at American community colleges as well as courses more comparable with a HNC/D. You can get a good solid degree from a respected American college, but you can also do degrees in subjects like "lay" midwifery that are not recognised as anything like equivalent to a degree by any institution, other than the one flogging offering it.
And that goes back to my point above.
There is a stereotype associated with HE as an educational choice. It can and does occur to people not keen on HE that higher ed/entrepreneur etc. may not be "created equal" with the real world when it is waggled by "fringe types" on paper.
Surveys with inherent issues from the word go make it all too easy for people to say we probably "fudge" the above (instead of providing upfront clarity about what we mean by terms like Higher. ed etc) cos we are afraid of the results if we don't.
So, no, to me more worrying than interesting, because it is deeply, deeply unimpressive as far as the unconvinced are concerned. All while being very vey impressive to somebody quite prone to confirmation bias. And that is a combination I dread when an HE feature (+ a comments section) gets published in an online, quality newspaper and some people get motivated to provide "a study that PROVES it !".
I think one of the positive ways we can combat negative perceptions of HE is by us being automatically critical of anything that smacks of being seductive rather than truly informative. It would send a strong message to the people that measure us and our ilk if we refuse to reward them with clicks+kudos ... just cos the results table looks good.
And then they might redesign their investigations to get us what we need. More realistic results, from more robust studies.
Cos that would be more useful.
I'd rather have less happy clappy tables, but more accurate information at our disposal. It's more helpful in terms of evaluating educational choices for my kid. And would be a lot more useful when combatting negative assumptions. Cos solid studies wouldn't be so prone to getting shot down and then promptly backfiring all over me.
Apologies if this reads as not playing nice as requested. But ... I think sometimes we can nice ourselves into not getting ours hands dirty.
Without poking about in the murky bits (like how we always get lumbered with "preach to choir" studies rather than anything that will give skeptics pause for thought), I don't see how we can isolate specific problems and maybe between us work out some potential solutions to them. Even if the solutions are small and don't offer overnight results.