I took psych stats two years ago, with an amazing professor. His philosophy was that we needed to know all the functions, not the computer software, so we learned everything and calculated by hand. Heck, my first test, I got everything right, but got a 78-because I did not show all my work. I learned my lesson.

That's the class where I earned an 89.9, then argued that .1 was insignificant, regardless of measurement used, so I should really have the A. I got it, because it was a valid use of the material he taught.

On the other hand, students on the Tampa campus taking that same Psych stats class learned the software. Now that I'm taking a grad level stats class, I am so very happy I had the professor I did and had to learn things the 'old-fashioned' way. It stuck with me.

I know the stuff, I remember the formulas, but now I need to learn all the Excel formulas to use in a different statistical analysis software. Still, most of the midterm will be defining things I learned two years ago-and I remember them.

Once again, the psych background is relevant.


JW said…
Ironically, when I took stats and went to the TLC at PSC we used the calculator instead of writing it all out. Hence, the only tutor in the TLC didn't know how to do the calculator but only know how to write it out and that creates a major divide in learning stats. My professor actually did some tutoring in for stats as well.

I think it is always important to learn the tedious way things work this way a person isn't controlled by technology in order to get by so much even though it makes life easier.

Popular posts from this blog

Unna Boot from Hell...

Glad that I'm not "Guilty By Association" on this one