deletions | additions       diff --git a/Training.tex b/Training.tex  index 44060a5..7056daa 100644  --- a/Training.tex  +++ b/Training.tex 
...
\subsection{Are We Trained?}  Considering that across all demographics $\sim90\%$ of astronomers are involved in writing software to some degree, it is important to asses the level of training we receive. We allowed participants to choose from one of three levels of training in software development: "A little", "A lot" and "None". The survey questions did not give guidelines on how to interpret the first two categories. Rather we left it to the survey participants to decide whether they thought their training was substantial or not.  This section breaks down the answers in different demographics. The first panel in Figure \ref{fig:train1} shows the answers from all participants. Both overall and for the individual Overall  $8\%\pm1\%$ of survey participants have received substantial training, $49\%\pm2\%$ have received a little training and $43\%\pm2\%$ have received no training. Altogether, 57\% of survey participants have received some training in software development. Across all career levels, only $\sim8\%$ of astronomers have received significant training. Facutly and scientists are slightly more likely to have received no training at $50\pm4\%$ versus $\sim40\pm3\%$ for the more junior groups. Postdocs and graduate students are slightly more likely to have received some training at $\sim53\pm4\%$, relative to faculty and scientists ($42\pm3\%$). In Figure \ref{fig:crosstrain} we specifically focus on the training of survey participants who, in the previous questions, said that they do write some of their software ("My own" & "Both" options). This represents $\sim90\%$ of the sample. The results are indistinguishable from the full sample. Overall, $42\%\pm2\%$ of those who write software have received no training and $92\%\pm3\%$ have received at best a little bit of training.