Statistics

stats to math what engineering is to physics? I feel like if you're really good at it - phd caliber with interesting research - the job opportunities are probably phenomenal

>PHD in statistics
??? Why would you go to graduate school to study mean median and mode

Some people are sad.

tbqh, it is way fucking harder than deterministic math.

You always need to take into account the correlations between different variables in any given system of equations, ans well as their different distributions and all the implications that come with them.

Maybe I'm just a brainlet but econometrics is one of the hardest classes i'm taking right now

I'm not sure in what area those people you're talking about are deficient in. However I can say that most graduate statistics courses don't require the level of rigor most graduate math courses do. You can feasibly pass the required curriculum without always thinking like a proper mathematician.

I could list out a bunch of materials to show how much of the subject you've neglected to mention, but instead I'm just going to ask you a simple question:

For an iid sample obtained from a normal distribution with unknown parameters, which of those three estimators should I use to estimate the true mean and why?

>which of those three estimators should I use to estimate the true mean and why?
If you need to ask me a simple question about mean median and mode then in all Likelihood statistics isn't for you.

I know what the answer is and why, but what about you? I'm asking if you can answer it.

it was a joke (and a pretty decent one at that), dude, chill

Statistics was the only math class I ever struggled in. Not sure why. I just couldn't wrap my head around some of those concepts and I kept making small mistakes on exams.

I didn't mean particularly deficient in the subject itself (I don't know enough to prove or disprove their work). They just struggled with very, very basic parts of the job (i.e. "How do I pull in the data?"). Stuff that any normal person would figure out within a few months. Stuff they used daily. Yet, these people were in charge of work where mistakes would be very expensive. I just find it really hard to believe they were doing a good job. Management couldn't call bullshit either because they couldn't disprove any of it.

They couldn't pull in data? Was it in a specific format or something that prevented them from googling the answer? Any decent department would give assignments requiring their students to read txt files into R.

Is this the field we use to prove minorities and women are inferior to the white man?

Took a baby upper division statistics course for Elecreical engineers; was definitely hard since it's so different from what I'm used to. The course was very interesting though, and statistics has a lot of real world applications. I can't say if it's harder than math but it's definitely tough.

Casella and Berger is your bible. But if you wanna get good at the programming side check out A Course in Statistics with R.

Also this autistic math professor at a podunk university made this badass site with the best explanations of anything statistics-related I've ever seen.
randomservices.org
Check out the apps (!)
Yeah, I actually want to make some cool econometrics for my PhD. I'm really into urban development. But my uni has no graduate economics department. Just Biostatistics. I think I'm gonna move.

>can't say if it's harder than math

t. Kate Perry

the most red pilled subject

Like half of the PhD student body are Indians and Chinese at where I am, and program's ranked within the top 20. The proportion among Master's students is even higher.

same here

>half of the PhD student body are Indians and Chinese

youtube.com/watch?v=F6BUZZ3qvZM

I want to go to Duke for my Stat PhD.

But if I have an MS Math and then finish out an MS Biostatistics are they gonna consider me "too prepared"?

I heard they don't like to recruit guys who've been sitting around academia super long.

why would you get an ms, get another ms, then get a phd?

Duke is primarily Bayesian, be warned

What's your issue with Bayesian methods?

nothing, just letting him know it's not your average Stats program

Because I got depressed and failed a class in Spring so won't get accepted for Fall '18.

I got really bummed out studying pure math and not getting to study any of the statistics I wanted. Sounds dumb but it happens. I kept all the proofs on my desk and didn't send them in cause I was depressed studying pure abstraction instead of cool statistics stuff.

studying pure math sucks unless you're...ya know. do you already have the one ms? go get a job dude school fucking blows.

Yeah, I'm just surveying my options.

I always wanted to learn stats but my school only offers pure theoretical math, and then Biostats.

Fun fact: the department chair actually told me we're allowed to take 12 hours of Biostats and count it towards the MS Math degree but it wasn't listed anywhere on the department site, no advisor told anyone that, and when I told my cohorts none of them even believed me until we asked the secretary.
And he only told me that after I'd signed up for courses for this Semester. Fucking douche, I wish I could have taken Survival Analysis or something cool instead of some shitty Numerical Linear Algebra class when I've already taken 2 other Linear Algebra classes. Survival Analysis is an awesome topic too. Used all the time in actuarial science.

Just do probability in pure math.

>survival analysis
if you're getting an ms in math (i am too atm) can't you just pick up something like that easily? i think math is a better degree in preparation for a stats phd than stats would be. you'd have to study a little harder to catch up on the basics, but i think after that your ability to dive deep would outmatch someone whose preparation was bs stats -> phd stats

I mean it in the context that one person couldn't build a basic query. Straight from the database. For comparison, it would be like the senior mechanic at a shop asking how to change a tire. Building it from a text file would be much harder in this instance.

this year on college i have 5 statistics subjects
any statistics books anyone can recomend?

Reported

porn isn't allowed on this board

I find math interesting but I didn't enjoy statistics. I can't put my finger on it but there's something about it that isn't as intuitive.

Statistics is one of the most unintuitive fields ever. Even after proving something and having it explained, it's still hard to believe/understand it. I don't blame them!

what does this mean

No one should be able to graduate high school without a statistics course. It's one of the most important things anyone could learn to function in today's society.

I just got accepted to the undergraduate stats program at UWashington Seattle

any tips?

I didn't know statistics was so esteemed by Veeky Forums. It has to be one of the most boring, dry subjects

it's boring yeah, but it also lets you categorize and manage uncertainty and work with unpure numbers, something that's super useful to any pure mathematician when they leave their house

Applied statistics is a great subject.
The theory behind statistics is fucking cancer and should be avoided at all costs.

Why?

Because it's useful no matter your field to sift through all the data you get.
Terrible analogy time
>Math=Letters
>Stats=Grammar
>Science=Essay

I thought this way but later I realised that statistics is actually a very deep subject.

As a field within pure math perhaps not so interesting; it is more like physics - conceptual issues are more prominent.

These might get you a sense of the possibilities

ET Jayne probability theory the logic of science

Gelman Bayesian Data Analysis

My tip to you is to double major in math; to be a real statistician you kind of need a bachelor's in math.
My other tip is to stay on for that 5th-year master's in stats. Seriously. Washington is probably the best statistics program in the country.

The theory behind statistics is fucking awesome you little shit.

I didn't know there was a 5th-year master's in stats. I'm double majoring in Computer Science, but minoring in Math. Thankfully, the stats program requires Real Analysis (from the math department), so hopefully I'm not missing out on too much.

Have statisticians a future when you take automisation and machines into account?

IMO statisticians such as actuaries might not have much of a future because of automisation, but statisticians in computing / data science / machine learning definitely do have a future.

And I'm actually not too sure about the actuary aspect either, not completely sure if that can be automated (I would think if it could be, it'd have been automated by now)

t. sociologist

waste of time. just learn deep learning.

"Statistics are like the lamp post to the drunkard; used more for support, than illumination."

My country is badly lacking in statisticians so they made 300k starting meme true but at BSc (no PhD required!) level if you majored with a focus on statistics.

>statistics PhD
Some people are unstoppably autistic

ACTUAL statistics done with rigour is really fucking difficult for me. I'm really fucking struggling do learn it.

It was an estimation joke, user. Likelihood as in maximum likelihood.

Undergrads, i swear..

Which country?

Is taught by a brainlet teacher, stats can be tough.

Also, dry stats can be hard - lubed up with biology, it's not bad. (I've taken a few different stats courses - for fun) Learning ab applications is always easier for me. Why is this info useful, etc.

Srsly

>boring
?????¿¿¿¿¿

>dumbfounded

How?? It's so ..... applicable

What is the best stats-related job out there?

>tfw the big-dicked alpha machine learning PhDs get paid 3 times more than you and can predict things much more accurately than your beta little hand-crafted generalised linear models

Linear model? More like lambda, sheesh

>study to draw conclusions of things everyone already knows except you have a degree now
>still cant say there is a disparity between intelligence and races or anything having to do with race because that would be 'racist'

Fuck you faggots

There are better questions to answer other than white male inferiority complexes
>neurotypical spreg
>aha

what about bioinformatics, ms?
virigin or chad?

usa

There are no races, there are only clines

it's p useful and probabilities are interesting in their own right
it's actually incredible the amount of things we know about what essentially amounts to "random shit happening" and the level of precision with which we can talk about things like stochastic processes

t. financial math phd student

like the other user said, the very nature of statistics makes it difficult to grasp intuitively
the formal rigouer is a nice way of diffusing that since you can always fall back on "by definition" or "by theorem X," which might be a good pedagogical tool for undergrads

this

autism alert wee woo wee woo

ye

in a random sample of pills conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, more pills polled were red than not
it's a very celebrated result in statistics you should be familiar with it

please explain the difference
i'm interested but i dont understand

congrats
double up in math and remember to take advantage of seattle and do an internship

>doing machine learning without understanding stats
hello brainlet

>falling for the machine learning meme
>settling for 80% accuracy because your shitty ad-hoc model is to stupid too learn better
uh? lmoa @ u

How is Bertsekas "introduction to probability"

My disappointment is not because undergrads try and struggle to understand some of the fundamental concepts, it's that they don't try at all. To truly understand statistics you have to work with some math, but these days lower undergrad courses are a requirement for many majors. A good number of students are non-STEM focused and they would rather not work with the basic of math concepts whatsoever, but still have the gall to try for a stats minor.

I think the best way for an undergrad to gain a real understanding of the subject is to take the intermediate undergrad course where they teach change of variables, moment generating functions, and basic convergence in probability and weak convergence, and other fundamental stuff. Most of the aforementioned people never do.