Our World in Data is an impressive, creative-commons licensed site managed by Max Roser . And it lives up to its name. The website provides all kinds of international data, divided by country, topic (population, health, food, growth & inequality, work, and life, etc.), and, when available, year. It contains its own proprietary data visualizations, which typically feature international data for a topic. You can customize these visualizations by nation. You can also DOWNLOAD THE DATA that has been visualized for use in the classroom. Much of the data can be visualized as a map and progress, year by year, through the data, like this data on international human rights. https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights/  https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights/ There are also plenty of topics of interest to psychologists who aren't teaching statistics. For example, international data on suicide: Data for psychology courses...https://ourworldindata.org/suicide/ Work...

People don't always tell the whole truth on dating websites, embellishing the truth to make themselves more desirable. This example of how OK Cupid users lie about their heights is a good example for conceptually explaining null hypothesis testing, t -tests, and normal distributions. So, Cheng, article author and data enthusiast, looked through OK Cupid data. In this article, she describes a few different findings, but I'm going to focus on just one of them: She looked at users' reported heights. And she found a funny trend. Both men and women seem to report that they are taller than they actually are. How do we know this? Well, the CDC collects information on human heights so we have a pretty good idea of what average heights are for men and women in the US. And then the author compared the normal curve representing human height to the reported height data from OK Cupid Users. See below... From http://nycdatascience.com/okcupid-scraper/, by Fangzhou Cheng  ...

The Travel Security Agency implemented SPOT training in order to teach air port security employees how to spot problematic and potentially dangerous individuals via behavioral cues. This intervention has cost the U.S. government $1 billion+. It doesn't seem to work. By discussing this with your class, you can discuss the importance of program evaluations as well as validity and reliability. The actual government issued report goes into great detail about how the program evaluation data was collected to demonstrate that SPOT isn't working. The findings (especially the table and figure below) do a nice job of demonstrating the lack of reliability and the lack of validity. This whole story also implicitly demonstrates that the federal government is hiring statisticians with strong research methods backgrounds to conduct program evaluations (= jobs for students). Here is a summary of the report from the Washington Post. Here is a short summary and video about the report from ...