LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (May 2000, week 4)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 23 May 2000 20:18:22 GMT
Reply-To:     jiwaniszek@nc.rr.com
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         John Iwaniszek <jiwaniszek@NC.RR.COM>
Organization: Road Runner - NC
Subject:      Re: PROC TABULATE, and most other PROCs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

This goes to the heart of the certification issue, which started this thread. Why should a procedure, which is easily replaced and certainly not essential, contribute so much to one's professional standing?

John

Ray Pass wrote: > > Here we go again :-) Maybe we can nip this one in the bud. > > Why do we often get into these shooting matches about, "My PROC's better > than your PROC!" Personally, I am a BIG fan and user of PROC TABULATE, > especially with it's new tie-in to STYLES and ODS, but I do not try to > proselytize about it, or about REPORT or ODS or any other PROC or method > that I use. I do try to tell others about them and suggest that they might > be quite useful, but I am a firm believer in using whatever gets the job done. > > Innovation and modification and new technologies have their places for > sure, and I am a major fan of using the latest and the greatest, but > there's also a lot to be said for comfort and familiarity levels, as long > as the end product is not seriously lacking because of a firm resistance to > effective and productive change. > > We see these arguments on both sides. "You really should be using this new > tool." "That new tool is probably dangerously buggy and I recommend the > old tried and true." Personally, I think that when taken to extremes, > both of these types of arguments are counter-productive. I am not accusing > anyone of anything right now, but I guess I am asking for a more > enlightened atmosphere of tolerance and education as opposed to > competitiveness and narrow-mindedness. > > I think that both messages below do adhere in spirit to a notion of, "This > works for me", and both do state that these are subjective statements, but > I can see them as possible launching points for another battle, which we > don't need. Thanks for listening. > > Ray > > At 02:48 PM 5/23/00 -0400, Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM wrote: > >In my humble opinion, the tabulate procedure has its place in the language/SAS > >system. > >I too have worked with several clients in the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare > >Information Industries. > >And I have found the tabulate procedure to be of better use to create some of > >the statistical tables. > >It has proven very useful for me in my creation of 2 way and 3 way tabular > >crossings. > >And I like the ALL option, its great for the totals. Also with V8 we can get > >the median stat > >without using the univariate procedure, to me this is a good enhancement. > > > > I do not find it cumbersome, limited and it's output is very attractive. I > >have had a number of my > >tabulate created text tables published within Study reports/NDA documents. > > > >Kind regards, > >Anne > >http://geocities.com/rainbow_softwr > > > >----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > >cc: > >From: John Iwaniszek <jiwaniszek@NC.RR.COM> > >Date: 05/23/2000 05:52 PM GMT > >Subject: Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine > > > >Message > >___________________________________________________________________________ > >_____ > > > > > > > > > >Sorry for rubbing you the wrong way. I meant (partly as a gibe) to > >include proc tabulate in my list of representative trivia because I have > >seen very little proc tabulate generated tables in my 10 years of > >generating tables and listings. I can not remember the last I use proc > >tabulate, yet I entabulate data daily for some of the biggest CROs and > >Pharamceutical comnpanies in the world. Proc tabulate is cumbersome, > >limited, and inadequate to many of the tasks we perform. Plus, its > >output is no way near as attractive as what I can do with our home grown > >SAS macros. > > > >I am sure that the intelligent reader will recognize that many of what I > >ave expressed is opinion subject to one's individual perspective. > >However, my satisfied clients will agree and it is they who count. > > > >As for the certification exam, the inclusion of many proc tabulate > >questions does not enhance the exam's credibility. > > > >John > > > >"Lund, Pete" wrote: > > > > > > I also took the Tekmetrics "test" (it was free!) and had the same initial > > > reaction. If I remember right there were about 40 questions and I would > > > hope that they are drawn from a larger pool of questions. I was surprised > > > at the relatively large number of questions that were related to PROC > > > TABULATE - probably 10-15%. No offense Lauren, but PROC TABULATE does not > > > make up 15% of my coding day. I agree with Anne that TABULATE is not an > > > obscure procedure, but it does not warrant the proportionally largest share > > > of a SAS test. > > > > > > I made it through as a "Master SAS Programmer" but I would put less > > stock in > > > that than the piece of paper they never sent me! When I've been > > involved in > > > conducting technical interviews we've always had people provide code > > samples > > > (though I guess they could be forged) and asked the applicant to do a data > > > flow diagram of a simple (with a twist) little problem. Those two things > > > often guided an interview much more than the score on a multiple choice > > test > > > ever would. > > > > > > Pete Lund > > > WA State Caseload Forecast Council > > > (360) 902-0086 voice > > > (360) 902-0084 fax > > > peter.lund@cfc.wa.gov > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM > > > [mailto:Anne.Marie.Smith@ASTRAPHARMACEUTICALS.COM] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 8:46 AM > > > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine > > > > > > Hi SAS-lers, > > > Ah yes, I have heard of this test website, aka TekMetrics, from Charles > > > Patridge. So the test is trivial, > > > in your opinion, while asking about obscure fxs and formats and even proc > > > tabulate. What is wrong with > > > asking about proc tabulate, which in my opinion, is not an obscure > > > procedure. > > > > > > By the way, check out www.reviewnet.net for a better online SAS test. It > > > will > > > cost you though. > > > I was one of the outline designers and writers of this SAS online test. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Anne > > > http://geocities.com/rainbow_softwr > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > > > cc: > > > From: "David L. Cassell" <Cassell.David@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV> > > > Date: 05/22/2000 06:27 PM GMT > > > Subject: Re: SAS certification vs. MCSE vs. coca vending machine > > > > > > Message > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > ____ > > > > > > John wrote [in part]: > > > > > > > I took the Brain Bench certification test and found it to measure > > > > primarily trivia (obscure functions and formats, proc tabulate). I do > > > > not believe that it would serve as a good measure of SAS skill or even > > > > an efficient screen for potential candidates > > > > > > I agree wholeheartedly with you about Brain Bench [aka TekMetrics]. > > > I have complained about their testing in this very mailing list. > > > But that is *not* the same thing as the certification which SAS is > > > pushing. > > > > > > That will measure your knowledge of a *different* set of trivia. > > > :-) > > > > > > David, who hopes people spot that smiley... > > > -- > > > David Cassell, OAO cassell@mail.cor.epa.gov > > > Senior computing specialist > > > mathematical statistician > > > >-- > >John Iwaniszek > > > >Statistical Programming Manager > >Stat-Tech Services, LLC > > > >919 571 6444 > > > >Developers of the Macro Reporting System - Delivering > >Statistical reports in ASCII, RTF, and HTML > > > >http://www.StatTechServices.com > > *------------------------------------------------* > | Ray Pass voice: (914) 693-5553 | > | Ray Pass Consulting eFax: (914) 206-3780 | > | 5 Sinclair Place | > | Hartsdale, NY 10530 e-mail: raypass@att.net | > *------------------------------------------------*

-- John Iwaniszek

Statistical Programming Manager Stat-Tech Services, LLC

919 571 6444

Developers of the Macro Reporting System - Delivering Statistical reports in ASCII, RTF, and HTML

http://www.StatTechServices.com


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page