The graph accurately represents the survey result but the survey cannot be taken as an accurate representation of the true position.
If you follow the link to the paper that Unherd has you'll see the following data on page 17:
The fourth column is "COVID-19 vaccine hesitant % (95% CI)".
The data itself came from an online survey via Facebook:
According to the Food Defect Levels Handbook (FDA.gov):
Refers to the results of the Howard mold count method which is reported as the percentage of positive microscopic fields that have been scored as either positive or negative based on the presence or absence of a minimum amount of mold hyphae.
Many web pages describe the method as "...
The survey has more than 98% non-response. What we're seeing here is selection bias: people who (claim to) have a PhD and are FaceBook users and responded to this survey are not representative of PhDs in general.
Taking the survey is voluntary, and only 1-2% of those users who are invited actually take the survey.
(This fact is mentioned in the middle of ...
I'll add here that while the data is in the paper, the bar graph from UnHerd is not. The paper has this line graph instead:
Indeed in May 2021 their data points to PhDs having the highest hesitancy, subject to the limitations of their study. (From Jan to April however, the "high school or less" topped the chart or at least tied the PhD line.)
Not a college.
In response to an incident in a middle school (13 year old kids,) a school district in Idaho banned backpacks in the local schools. It affected middle schools (grade 7 and 8, kids 13 and 14 years old) and highschools (grades 9 through 12, kids 15 to 18 years old.)
From the article in The Independent:
Idaho’s Jefferson School District enacted ...