Does reading The Wall Street Journal makes one more likely to get better jobs and bigger salaries?
The Saturday edition had a half page Ad for student subscription. You can find the claims made in that Ad here.
The problem with these claims is correlation does not imply causation. Regarding these claims:
- This is a survey, not a controlled experiment where they randomly assigned people to a control group and treatment group and followed them over years to see if there are statistically significant differences in their GPA, salary etc.
- There is omitted variable bias here. The same trait that made the students and others read the WSJ is possibly the driver behind their success. Self motivated and driven people are going to equip themselves with every possible tool and training to get ahead in life. If it is not WSJ they would have read other journals and newspapers to get ahead. While the claim that “Journal helps the student get ahead with a robust set of career preparation resources” is valid the following statement “Did you know students who read The Journal are 140% more likely to be starting a full-time job upon graduation?” is misleading because it implies causation.
Few years back there was a TV commercial for WSJ that showed a man going up in career because of WSJ. The commercial starts with a man, walking in rain, stopping to pick a copy of WSJ from a news vendor to protect himself from the rain. He later runs into an executive of his company in the elevator, who upon seeing the newspaper in his hand offers him instant promotion. It is one thing to use humor to imply causation, no one will take it seriously. It is however not factually correct when they use survey data and make a causation claim based on correlation.
Other reads: There was also an article on Fantasy Football that implies causation from correlation.