On 8/15/16 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/15/2016 8:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/15/16 7:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/14/2016 10:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

I have a whole lot of training in database analysis along with a few
decades of actual experience running numbers that my company was
betting millions on. Sitting in a room listening to some old fart
telling me how they did things with paper records, pencils and
mechanical calculators does not interest me.

My lovely wife took several stats courses as an undergrad, many more as
a grad student, and even more as a doctoral student. The latter were
taught by university math professors and held at the College of
Engineering. Pretty heavy math and studies in interpretation, database
analysis and more. I don't recall her mentioning paper records,
pencils,
and calculators. She did use a couple of computer stats courses,
though.
Upon completing her doctoral course work, she had to take and pass a
three day written examination that included doctoral level statistical
work and after that, a day of oral exam by a handful of professors,
including two from another institution and I believe one of those guys
was a math professor.


Now, me, I can do some math, but anything beyond really simple stats is
beyond my knowledge and probably ability.


Heh. Yet, you are so quick to criticize Greg with regard to his
qualifications to analyze and interpret statistical data.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that the number of college degrees
one holds is *not* the most significant achievement in life.




I'm impressed by experts who are taught and learn the fundamentals, and
then progressively add more knowledge and experience through disciplined
teaching, study and practice.

I agree that college is one way to become exposed to the "fundamentals",
but it's certainly not the *only* way .. and after college you are on
your own. My comment was about those who think a degree or degrees
makes one more qualified than anyone else and sit on their laurels all
their lives thinking that the degree is what differentiates them from
others. You seem to fit in that category. Don't you have any
associates or friends you respect for their accomplishments, regardless
of the number of degrees they hold (if any) ?

I know lots of people with lots of skills, and any number of those
people never set foot in college. If I were hiring a statistician,
though, I'd want to know about their academic credentials.

Your comment about "after college you are on your own" is incorrect.
Many professions require formal, continuing education in order to
maintain credentials or licenses.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:48:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. Yet, you are so quick to criticize Greg with regard to his
qualifications to analyze and interpret statistical data.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that the number of college degrees
one holds is *not* the most significant achievement in life.


I think the difference is that traditionally a statistician was
trained in how to take small snippets of data and extrapolate it into
broad statements about how things are.
I will agree that is a science, bordering on an art.
In the days of "big data" we have the opposite situation. we have
masses of detail data on everything and the trick is distilling it
down into a useable form. In that regard, IBM was way ahead of the
curve. We had guys reporting every hour of their day in 6 minute
increments and every part they used along with computerized dispatch
with every detail of every call and a parts distribution system that
recorded every part from the time it was put into the system until it
was sent to the field. We had masses of data and the trick was making
sense of it. That is similar to what is happening today in other
things.

On 8/15/16 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:48:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Heh. Yet, you are so quick to criticize Greg with regard to his
qualifications to analyze and interpret statistical data.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that the number of college degrees
one holds is *not* the most significant achievement in life.


I think the difference is that traditionally a statistician was
trained in how to take small snippets of data and extrapolate it into
broad statements about how things are.
I will agree that is a science, bordering on an art.
In the days of "big data" we have the opposite situation. we have
masses of detail data on everything and the trick is distilling it
down into a useable form. In that regard, IBM was way ahead of the
curve. We had guys reporting every hour of their day in 6 minute
increments and every part they used along with computerized dispatch
with every detail of every call and a parts distribution system that
recorded every part from the time it was put into the system until it
was sent to the field. We had masses of data and the trick was making
sense of it. That is similar to what is happening today in other
things.



I'm sure that statistical "training" has adapted since you and I were
sprouts.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:17:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


I'm impressed by experts who are taught and learn the fundamentals, and
then progressively add more knowledge and experience through disciplined
teaching, study and practice.

Yet you denigrate someone with over 10,000 hours in class and 30 years
of experience simply because it was not in a place that called itself
"college". At a certain point I value training that is on the cutting
edge of technology above hearing how things used to be from a guy who
never actually did it.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:19:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


By the same token, compared to your modern-day Republicans, Barry
Goldwater was the paragon of rationality.

He was always a paragon of rationality. You folks wanted the peace
candidate, Johnson and you got Vietnam

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/15/16 7:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/14/2016 10:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

I have a whole lot of training in database analysis along with a few
decades of actual experience running numbers that my company was
betting millions on. Sitting in a room listening to some old fart
telling me how they did things with paper records, pencils and
mechanical calculators does not interest me.

My lovely wife took several stats courses as an undergrad, many more as
a grad student, and even more as a doctoral student. The latter were
taught by university math professors and held at the College of
Engineering. Pretty heavy math and studies in interpretation, database
analysis and more. I don't recall her mentioning paper records, pencils,
and calculators. She did use a couple of computer stats courses, though.
Upon completing her doctoral course work, she had to take and pass a
three day written examination that included doctoral level statistical
work and after that, a day of oral exam by a handful of professors,
including two from another institution and I believe one of those guys
was a math professor.


Now, me, I can do some math, but anything beyond really simple stats is
beyond my knowledge and probably ability.


Heh. Yet, you are so quick to criticize Greg with regard to his
qualifications to analyze and interpret statistical data.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that the number of college degrees
one holds is *not* the most significant achievement in life.




I'm impressed by experts who are taught and learn the fundamentals, and
then progressively add more knowledge and experience through disciplined
teaching, study and practice.


My stepfather was a Cal graduate with a degree in math. Masters from
Cornell. Could not add 2+2 without a paper and pencil and was a crappy
professor. I was much better at math and it's application with a bachelor
in electronic engineering than he was with his advanced studies. One of
the differences between engineers and liberal arts statistician is we
learned the math underneath and statistics. You learned neither. Where
did Zukerburg get his degree? Advanced degree? Same question regards Bill
Gates.
Buffett's comments.
http://www.businessinsider.com/warre...veryone-2012-5

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:20:43 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/14/16 10:42 PM, wrote:

Dunno Ask the eastern Europeans who said they were "promised" that
land in 1946-48. I never believed it and did not try to find a cite.
(probably in Exodus somewhere) Your standing excuse that there have
been Jews there since Moses does not explain why people living in
Europe for the last 1000 years have a claim, simply based on their
"imaginary friend" (your words, not mine). It really gets ridiculous
when Americans or Russians say they have a spot picked out on the West
Bank.



What about those white Europeans who decided they had a claim on the
"new world"?

You finally get it.
It is a very similar situation but I thought the world was supposed to
advance a little in 300 years. Israel is the final European conquest
that happened just at the time when Europe was giving up it's colonies
and rejecting apartheid. We had just fought a bloody war with Japan
and Germany for the same thing.

wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:17:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


I'm impressed by experts who are taught and learn the fundamentals, and
then progressively add more knowledge and experience through disciplined
teaching, study and practice.

Yet you denigrate someone with over 10,000 hours in class and 30 years
of experience simply because it was not in a place that called itself
"college". At a certain point I value training that is on the cutting
edge of technology above hearing how things used to be from a guy who
never actually did it.


Warren Buffett left Wharton, which he entered at 16, because he knew more
than the professors. Went back to Nebraska to finish his first degree. I
guess those Wharton Profs forgot to apply their learning.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:24:02 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/14/16 10:11 PM, wrote:

What does that have to do with cooking the books on the unemployment
rate? Is it just the way they learn how to rationalize a bogus number?


I was commenting on your "lot of training."

I am not sure how much actual hours translate to a credit hour but my
database skills were developed over at least 1000 hours of learning
and plenty of hands on experience with dBase and DB2. It is not as
easy to quantify as sitting in a sterile university setting because
you learn skills, use them and then learn new skills, use them etc.
all in a real world setting.

On 8/15/2016 9:56 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/15/16 8:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/15/2016 8:17 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/15/16 7:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/14/2016 10:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/14/16 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:21 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

You're really overgeneralizing in your first sentence. How many
undergrad, grad, and post-grad stats courses have you taken?

I have a whole lot of training in database analysis along with a few
decades of actual experience running numbers that my company was
betting millions on. Sitting in a room listening to some old fart
telling me how they did things with paper records, pencils and
mechanical calculators does not interest me.

My lovely wife took several stats courses as an undergrad, many
more as
a grad student, and even more as a doctoral student. The latter were
taught by university math professors and held at the College of
Engineering. Pretty heavy math and studies in interpretation, database
analysis and more. I don't recall her mentioning paper records,
pencils,
and calculators. She did use a couple of computer stats courses,
though.
Upon completing her doctoral course work, she had to take and pass a
three day written examination that included doctoral level statistical
work and after that, a day of oral exam by a handful of professors,
including two from another institution and I believe one of those guys
was a math professor.


Now, me, I can do some math, but anything beyond really simple
stats is
beyond my knowledge and probably ability.


Heh. Yet, you are so quick to criticize Greg with regard to his
qualifications to analyze and interpret statistical data.

Maybe someday it will occur to you that the number of college degrees
one holds is *not* the most significant achievement in life.




I'm impressed by experts who are taught and learn the fundamentals, and
then progressively add more knowledge and experience through disciplined
teaching, study and practice.

I agree that college is one way to become exposed to the "fundamentals",
but it's certainly not the *only* way .. and after college you are on
your own. My comment was about those who think a degree or degrees
makes one more qualified than anyone else and sit on their laurels all
their lives thinking that the degree is what differentiates them from
others. You seem to fit in that category. Don't you have any
associates or friends you respect for their accomplishments, regardless
of the number of degrees they hold (if any) ?

I know lots of people with lots of skills, and any number of those
people never set foot in college. If I were hiring a statistician,
though, I'd want to know about their academic credentials.

Your comment about "after college you are on your own" is incorrect.
Many professions require formal, continuing education in order to
maintain credentials or licenses.


Continuing education to maintain credentials or licenses is part of
"being on your own".