i would like to comment on this ... without getting anyone mad at me. i
have heard this argument many times before but ... i think that if we
promulgate this ... what it means is that we are not doing our students any
favors ... i don't view some general stat package as a "specialist" package
... it is how people who do statistics work, work. it is comparable to
saying that since everyone might have notepad on their machine, that that
is the way they should do word processing. we need to alert students to
general tools that are DESIGNED to do certain things ... and, if they
become professionals in the field .. then they should know that sometimes
you need to purchase "tools" for your work
sure, excel can do (with its plugin modules) much of this stuff but, A) the
algorithms for doing much of this are not very efficient nor, is their
accuracy without conern, and B) excel is limited in many ways so, for many
things one has to go to the REAL things anyway ... why don't start them on
that path in the first place?
software is cheap nowadays ... for example ... one can go to
http://www.e-academy.com ... and download minitab) as one exmaple ... for
$25 for 6 months ... or go to http://www.minitab.com ... and get it totally
free for 30 days ... or buy good student editions of packagages for,
reasonable prices OR, there are shareware packages that are pretty good ...
and even online routines (like statlets) ... in this climate ... it seems
even LESS of an argument that students might not have access to real
packages .. they are all over the place and cheap.
but, this is just my opinion ...
At 06:46 PM 11/29/99 +0000, Graham D Smith wrote:
>> I guess "nice" is in the eye of the beholder. I view this as
>> another good reason NOT to use Excel for Statistics!
>>
>> Please use the right tool for the job.
>>
>> Jon Cryer
>
>Sometimes the right tool for the job is Excel. Most of my students will not
>have access to specialist statistical software after they graduate. Although
>Excel has many shortcomings, it is widely-available.
>
>
>Dr Graham D. Smith
>Psychology Division
>School of Behavioural Studies
>University College Northampton
>Boughton Green Road
>Northampton
>NN2 7AL
>
>Tel (01604) 735500 Ext 2393
>Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jon Cryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Rank Awful
>
>
>> I guess "nice" is in the eye of the beholder. I view this as
>> another good reason NOT to use Excel for Statistics!
>>
>> Please use the right tool for the job.
>>
>> Jon Cryer
>>
>> At 05:58 PM 11/26/99 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Very nice solution.
>> >It can be reduced even to the last part:
>> >RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)-1)/2)
>> >
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> >> You can modify the rank() function using the following one:
>> >>
>> >> IF(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)=1, RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1),
>> >> RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)-1)/2)
>> >>
>> >> In this setting, the data range is A1:A6 (as the example you mentioned
>in
>> >> your email), and ranking is in the ascending order, e.g. smaller number
>> >> gets smaller rank. You can type this function in cell B1, and copy the
>> >> formula to B1:B6. Let me know if you need further info.
>> >>
>> >> Jay
>> >>
>> >
>> >********************************************************
>> > Ivan Zezula, Safarik University, Kosice
>> >
>> >
>> _____________
>> ------------------------------------------------- | \
>> Jon Cryer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( )
>> Department of Statistics http://www.stat.uiowa.edu\ \_
>University
>> and Actuarial Science office 319-335-0819 \ * \ of
>Iowa
>> The University of Iowa dept. 319-335-0706 \ /
>Hawkeyes
>> Iowa City, IA 52242 FAX 319-335-3017 |____________ )
>> ------------------------------------------------- V
>>
>
----------------------------------------------
208 Cedar Bldg., University Park, PA 16802
AC 814-863-2401 Email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm
FAX: AC 814-863-1002
