Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 11 Jul 2014, 22:52

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

looking for some reassurance

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 399
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 14 Sep 2008, 15:16
I'm thinking about switching my MS from one in marketing to an MS in Statistics. There was some overlap between the two, and I just figure that taking the extra (tougher) courses in Stats and getting the MS in Stats is a better investment... I'd still do an independent study or two with a marketing professor to get some research done in the area I am interested in before I graduate.

I know this is the right decision, but I am nervous because the chance of me getting a 4.0 in Stat is much slimmer than in Marketing. I just need reassurance that adcoms would be more impressed with a student with a 3.7 in Stat vs. 4.0 in marketing.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 16 Sep 2008, 15:17
Just speaking as somebody inside looking back, I don't think a 3.7 v 4.0 will make or break your application. Your study with the marketing professor, and what you have to show for it via your SOP, will actually contribute more to your overall application package. Grades don't impress them (much), since they get straight-4.0s every other applicant. Somebody who shows logical thought and research potential is a much more attractive applicant.

That being said, having taken a few weeks of stats course, I can tell you a good foundation in statistics will be nice. Our class is a combination of OB, Marketing, and CIS types, and the prof took one week to "review" confidence intervals, after which everybody sort of walked out of class looking very much "THAT was just a review?!". If you're curious, the text we will be using is Applied Linear Statistical Models, by Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, & Li, supposedly a popular book amongst PhD stats courses. Of course, once again, each program differs, so what I'm saying may not apply to other programs.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 399
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 28 Sep 2008, 10:24
Kutner is definitely not an easy read, and I feel the notation used is not precise. Capital letters are generally reserved for random variables, yet my whole understanding of OLS is that our regressors are under experimental control.

Also, where the book fails is when it uses calculus to find derivatives of what amounts to be functions of constants and not variables.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 196
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 2

Re: looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2008, 20:22
anonymousegmat wrote:
Kutner is definitely not an easy read, and I feel the notation used is not precise. Capital letters are generally reserved for random variables, yet my whole understanding of OLS is that our regressors are under experimental control.


That probably depends on how you learned that stuff. In linear algebra (which is what almost all of econometrics is derived from), capital letters represent matrices while lowercase letters are for vectors. Hence the regression Y = XB + E (B and E should be beta and epsilon greek letters here of course) refers to the 'true' model which presumably applies to the whole population. In other settings you may have the distinction you brought up, but all of my econometrics books (Greene, Woolridge, Hayashi, Goldberger, Kennedy) use this notation.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 56
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 30 Sep 2008, 18:04
What cabro57 is saying is how I learned it... then again, my college stats class was in the economics department.

Kutner isn't a bad book... it just tries to do too many things at once, resulting in 1) Sometimes not very detailed and 2) Weighing a metric ton... even our prof just decided to toss the book when some of us started showing up with rollaboards, lol.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 399
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: looking for some reassurance [#permalink] New post 11 Oct 2008, 14:53
cabro57 wrote:
anonymousegmat wrote:
Kutner is definitely not an easy read, and I feel the notation used is not precise. Capital letters are generally reserved for random variables, yet my whole understanding of OLS is that our regressors are under experimental control.


That probably depends on how you learned that stuff. In linear algebra (which is what almost all of econometrics is derived from), capital letters represent matrices while lowercase letters are for vectors. Hence the regression Y = XB + E (B and E should be beta and epsilon greek letters here of course) refers to the 'true' model which presumably applies to the whole population. In other settings you may have the distinction you brought up, but all of my econometrics books (Greene, Woolridge, Hayashi, Goldberger, Kennedy) use this notation.


When my text uses matrix methods it uses boldface notation... so I think the authors are just taking shortcuts and not being careful with notation vis-a-vis what is random and what is not. I guess it is just implied that you are supposed to know when gears shift between random and not, but I think it is bogus. Likewise, I think it is lame to see a supposedly revered text find the derivative of a function with respect to Beta1 in order to minimize squared errors, when Beta1 is a constant, so it doesn't make sense.... if they were precise they would introduce a variable, theta. But I guess they didn't want to waste ink and add any more bulk to the text... (sarcasm).
Re: looking for some reassurance   [#permalink] 11 Oct 2008, 14:53
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Really need some reassurance Niki88 1 23 Oct 2011, 17:02
Experts publish their posts in the topic Looking for some expert insight! mikekennyb 2 23 Sep 2010, 13:58
Looking for some advice seekmba 9 02 Mar 2010, 07:27
Looking for some advice on Masters JM15 1 05 Dec 2009, 07:41
Experts publish their posts in the topic Looking for some feedback kilograms 1 05 Mar 2009, 11:38
Display posts from previous: Sort by

looking for some reassurance

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderator: carcass



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.