Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Back in the "old days", the standard text for an undergraduate math stat
> >course was Hogg & Craig. I had some fondness for Lindgren. I haven't
> >taught this course in nearly 20 years. Which texts occupy their position
> >today?
>
> It was? There were many, and none too good. Personally, I
> never like Hogg and Craig too well, and considered Lindgren to
> be far worse.
Then which ones did you find least objectionable? My fondness for
Lindgren is due, no doubt, to my having had it as the assigned text
for my first course as a student. It was one of the few texts
geared toward undergraduates that bothered to state that maximum
likelihood estimates were asymptotically efficient (without detailed
proof, but at least the result is there) which, for better or worse,
helps explain part of the fascination with mle's.
> The question is which undergraduates. Someone who is planning
> on doing decent graduate work should take an undergraduate
> "pure mathematics" program intended for mathematicians, and no
> probability and statistics below the level of Hoel, Port, and
> Stone, if at all possible. If anything, I consider the level
> to be on the low side. Other statistics books would be Bickel
> and Doksum, or Cassella and Berger.
Not an issue for me. I was merely curious as to what the latest
"standard" was. Sounds like Cassella and Berger is worth a
look-see.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
