<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > After I learned stats, I > > looked back and decided I thought Kennedy sucked; don't recall why. (That > > doesn't mean I thought it sucked compared to other econometric texts; maybe > > they all suck.) > > > > At first I thought that I was simply math illiterate, but listen to > this, from the preface to Fundamentals of Social Statistics by > Elifson: > > "While an undergraduate, I enrolled in the first of many statistics > courses. At the time the course frequently left me and my classmates > confused and floundering to the extent that we learned little about > statistics...The book lacked interesting and relevant examples, > omitted computational steps, introduced but did not define new > concepts, and seldom presented the relevance or logic of the > techniques it purported to teach. I was frequently juggling numbers > that were not placed in a meaningful context..." > > This is from a stats prof! We'll see if he is successful in getting > the concepts through my thick skull!
My main problem with stats is that the concepts are not economically presented. In math (my training), there's more emphasis on central points, which leads to (*relatively*) less confusion. There are also problems, like discredited methods not clearly disavowed (I'm thinking of "model fishing" involved with some multi-step regression models). Your point about omission of calculations is well-founded. Many books seem to have the attitude "Here's was SAS says..." . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
