Discussion: Let's Stop Squandering Our Most Strategic Weapon

We would like to express our appreciation to David Moore and the International Statistical Review for inviting us to participate in this discussion. We are delighted to be "part of the team" helping to improve introductory statistics education. Our comments will be from the perspective of business and industry-the employers, as engineers, scientists, managers, etc., of most students of introductory statistics courses. We were very impressed with Moore's paper, and found little to take issue with. Our comments will therefore focus on extending the discussion in some areas particularly important to business and industry. We view the intro course as our profession's most strategic weapon. More and more of our colleagues, both technical and management, have had such a course in their education. Unfortunately, for the vast majority, the experience was a negative one. This causes us significant problems in promoting statistical concepts since many of our customers have already concluded that statistics is not relevant in their work. In short, we feel that we have often squandered our most strategic weapon--despite the recent efforts of Moore and others. Instead, we would like to see our future customers and associates emerge from the intro stat course with enthusiasm for the subject, and a solid appreciation of basic concepts. A major issue hinted at by Moore, but not specifically addressed, is the low priority given to intro courses by academia in general, and Statistics Departments in particular. For example, who ever received tenure for teaching intro courses well? This course is too frequently taught by junior faculty members with no real applications experience, while more senior faculty, who might be able to provide a broader perspective, concentrate on research and advanced courses. Our entire profession must share the blame for this tremendous blunder. We in industry have not sufficiently emphasized the need for changing priorities-much less offered assistance. For example, few of us have volunteered ourselves to our local universities to help add a more practical flair to their introductory offerings. Also, ASA and ISI can play a role here-both due to its strong academic ties and by its own actions, e.g., by recognizing teaching of introductory courses through special awards or by making it one significant criterion for ASA Fellowship and ISI election to membership. We certainly agree with Moore's points about the difference between mathematics and statistics. Thus, we applaud his statement that "... statistics is not a subfield of mathematics, and that in consequence, beginning instruction that is primarily mathematical, or even structured according to an underlying mathematical theory, is misguided". We are, therefore, somewhat concerned that readers may misinterpret the fact that Moore talked about "mathematical sciences" in general, and then statistics in particular, rather than focusing the discussion on statistics education alone. The casual reader may get the erroneous impression that the goals for the intro course listed in his Figure 1, which stress higher-order thinking and flexible skills, are generally agreed upon. We surely agree with these goals, but have faced vehement resistance to them from some of our statistical