I dunno on their research. Kinda wondering what their subject group demographics might have been. If they just polled a random group of people, it's quitely likely that the responders with lower scores/lower DPs might have either fudged their scores/DPs or most refused to answer period.
I'm only questioning that because they're essentially saying that if you don't have a score of above, say, 680, you can't get a mortgage loan unless you're plunking down 10-20% down payment. The Mortgage forums here are rife with people who've gotten approved with lower scores and less DP.
But then, LOL (sorta), I'm coming from the "lower score (660)/less DP (roughly 7%)" group. MY MMV. 
At least, I'm hoping so!!!
First off, Cando, I REALLY hope I was criticizing your role in the cite!! You've been nothing but an awesome contributor here. And IMHO, that's saying a LOT. 
My beef was more along the lines of the fact that WSJ, despite their rep at being a no-nonsense non-biased "expert," and taking a more or less scientific approach, they didn't break down the demographics of the polled group. Nor did they allow for any derivations like +/- X%. In not doing so, I feel that they undermined the effectiveness of the article.
I mean, if person X views and believes it to be a real determination of their chances of getting a mortgage approved and doesn't apply out of fear of rejection, they've even MORE undermined their ability to be accurate next "poll-time." Especially since the criteria to qualify for a loan, as I understand it, isn't decided by such rote, rigorous criteria. At least, not as I understand it.
But then, DH's a scientist and has taught me, by osmosis, to be suspicious of any data evaluation that doesn't allow for odd variables. :/
In fact, you oughta see him question our kids' report card grade percentages!!!
My beef was more along the lines of the fact that WSJ, despite their rep at being a no-nonsense non-biased "expert," and taking a more or less scientific approach, they didn't break down the demographics of the polled group. Nor did they allow for any derivations like +/- X%. In not doing so, I feel that they undermined the effectiveness of the article.
I mean, if person X views and believes it to be a real determination of their chances of getting a mortgage approved and doesn't apply out of fear of rejection, they've even MORE undermined their ability to be accurate next "poll-time." Especially since the criteria to qualify for a loan, as I understand it, isn't decided by such rote, rigorous criteria. At least, not as I understand it.
But then, DH's a scientist and has taught me, by osmosis, to be suspicious of any data evaluation that doesn't allow for odd variables. :/
In fact, you oughta see him question our kids' report card grade percentages!!!
Oh, believe me, CanDo ... you are MUCH appreciated!!
But yes, that was my point! I mean, they should have included that information in their article. Otherwise, how is the average person supposed to know the variables? From reading that article, I would only be able to assume that unless I have 740+ credit and/or more than 20% to plunk down, I may as well not even bother pursuing the "American Dream" (though, I'd have to imagine it's the European, Middle Eastern, etc .. Dream).
I could only see that as being horribly disheartening to the average person here at MyFICO. Yannow?
And I'M not like that. I like my info diluted and spoon-fed, I assure you! The more others think for me, the less work my poor tired ol' brain has to do, the less I can goof up. Win-win for everyone!
But yes, that was my point! I mean, they should have included that information in their article. Otherwise, how is the average person supposed to know the variables? From reading that article, I would only be able to assume that unless I have 740+ credit and/or more than 20% to plunk down, I may as well not even bother pursuing the "American Dream" (though, I'd have to imagine it's the European, Middle Eastern, etc .. Dream).
I could only see that as being horribly disheartening to the average person here at MyFICO. Yannow?
And I'M not like that. I like my info diluted and spoon-fed, I assure you! The more others think for me, the less work my poor tired ol' brain has to do, the less I can goof up. Win-win for everyone!