Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 08:47:25 -0700
Reply-To: Jack Hamilton <jfh@STANFORDALUMNI.ORG>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Jack Hamilton <jfh@STANFORDALUMNI.ORG>
Subject: Re: Joe Whitehurst (was Fw: Rant on a pharma job interview:)
In-Reply-To: <00ae01cad65e$256de770$7049b650$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There have been political and personal posts on SAS-L at least since the internet era, and possibly before that. They are unlikely to stop. Just as they are unlikely to stop anywhere else.
It might, however, be possible to train other SAS-L-ers not to make the problem worse by responding to them or publicly complaining about them, which adds heat but no light to the discussion. But I doubt it.
So you'll just have to live with it.
If the two or three emails between Joe and Kevin take up enough space in your inbox that you need to worry about it, you need a new hard drive or a new email provider or both.
--
Jack Hamilton
jfh@alumni.stanford.org
Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt.
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:25 , Mike O'Brien wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Usually I remain impartial on these matters, but these antics are a waste of
> my time and, I am sure, everyone else's on this list. In the future, limit
> any bickering or personal squabbling to your personal emails and don't waste
> valuable space in my inbox. I feel this is a list for SAS RELATED ISSSUES
> ONLY and NOT POLITICAL COMMENTARY or PERSONAL ARGUMENTS!
>
> Does anyone else out there agree?
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Regards, Mike
>
> Michael O'Brien
> Statistician/SAS Programmer
> http://www.visualCV.com/rugrad91
>
> Home: 732-297-0937
> Email: rugrad91@verizon.net
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelobrien91
>
>
> 4 Dundee Road
> Kendal Park, NJ 0882
> USA
>
> See who we know in common
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joe
> Whitehurst
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:56 AM
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Joe Whitehurst (was Fw: Rant on a pharma job interview:)
>
> Why not just send me the email addresses for all those you wish to notify,
> so I can directly copy them on any sweet talk I send to you?
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Kevin Myers <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> Joe Whitehurst -
>>
>> By this message you are hereby notified that the messages from you
> included
>> below, as well as any and all subsequent messages sent by you that I
>> receive, whether sent directly to my private email address, through a
> public
>> newsgroup or listserv, or transmitted to me via any other communications
>> mechanism whether public or private, are being forwarded to the SAS-L list
>> administrator, and may also be forwarded to other SAS-L list participants,
>> as well as to SAS Institute, their legal representatives, and to my own
>> lawyer. So if there is anything that you want to remain private, then you
>> had better NOT send it to me.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> Kevin M.
>>
>> P.S. - My apologies to other members of the list for this highly
>> unfortunate use of bandwidth.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Kevin Myers <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 07, 2010 02:08
>> *Subject:* Re: Rant on a pharma job interview:
>>
>> I am just now starting to examime all Kevin's previous posts. I promise
> to
>> expose his stupidity for all to see!
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Joe Whitehurst
> <joewhitehurst@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I responded directly to Kevin and rejected his request. I'll leave it up
>>> to him to share my response or not.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:42 AM, Kevin Myers
> <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe -
>>>>
>>>> I happen to have rather drastically different views of past and current
>>>> adminstrations than you do. However, I will endeavor to refrain from
>>>> posting those views on SAS-L, which is NOT the place for them, and I
> would
>>>> appreciate it if you would do the same.
>>>>
>>>> s/KAM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Whitehurst" <
>>>> joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
>>>>
>>>> To: <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 23:01
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Rant on a pharma job interview:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alan,
>>>>>
>>>>> If we could just restore the funding gutted by the Alzheimer
>>>>> Administration
>>>>> in 1980 we just might make life in the USA more fair. I'm hoping the
>>>>> current brilliant Administration will do just that in the face of
> fierce
>>>>> totally ignorant "Rebugnican" opposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Alan Churchill
>>>>> <alan.churchill@savian.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My take is that most things are fair game. Joe has a point but the
>>>>>> client
>>>>>> may just write you off if pressed too far. Mention EEOC in an
> interview
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> you will not get the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a consultant, I can expect a client to shoot anything at me and I
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> respond. Oftentimes, your first encounter is in a first meeting, lots
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> people, problem laid out, your turn to answer how to solve it. You
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> given a generic question like how many obs will this step produce,
>>>>>> theoretically. You are given a really complex issue and you have to
>>>>>> start
>>>>>> drawing up a solution on the whiteboard then and there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, a question on a Cartesian product would offend me. What
>>>>>> will be
>>>>>> the result if I miss it? I am no longer considered a viable SAS
>>>>>> programmer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Churchill
>>>>>> Savian
>>>>>> Work: 719-687-5954
>>>>>> Cell: 719-310-4870
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> O'Brien
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:02 PM
>>>>>> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rant on a pharma job interview:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am a little confused. Joe, are you suggesting that the questions
>>>>>> asked of
>>>>>> Dan in the interview were against EEOC guidelines? If so, why? They
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> bona fide job qualification questions. I recently had an interview for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> SAS
>>>>>> programming position here at a CRO in NJ. Being that it would be my
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> SAS programming position, the interviewer asked my questions (about my
>>>>>> SAS
>>>>>> knowledge) for 30 minutes. They was no bad intent on his part. He was
>>>>>> checking my knowledge base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I am wrong, please correct me. I enjoy the lively discussions and
>>>>>> spirit
>>>>>> of cooperation I see on this list. I just joined a couple of months
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Respectfully yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike O'Brien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael O'Brien
>>>>>> Statistician/SAS Programmer
>>>>>> http://www.visualCV.com/rugrad91
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Home: 732-297-0937
>>>>>> Email: rugrad91@verizon.net
>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelobrien91
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4 Dundee Road
>>>>>> Kendal Park, NJ 0882
>>>>>> USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See who we know in common
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> Whitehurst
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:25 PM
>>>>>> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rant on a pharma job interview:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I continue to be amazed at the number of folks who naively reveal that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> think they can just ask any old question they wish when trying to
>>>>>> select
>>>>>> someone for a job in the United States. Any act directed at selecting
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> person for a job in the United States is subject to the requirements
>>>>>> articulated in the Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection which were
>>>>>> published in 1978 by the EEOC (despite being gutted by funding cuts
> by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Alzheimer Administration in 1980, these guidelines are still the *Law
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Land* even though funding cuts have created a huge backlog of cases to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> heard during the frat-boy caused financial debacle we are facing
>>>>>> today):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since 1978, when the Uniform Guidelines On Employee Selection were
>>>>>> published
>>>>>> by the EEOC, it should be clear that interviewers are _NOT_ "entitled
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> choose those question he/she prefers as long as they refer to the
>>>>>> assignment." There is a substantial body of case law from the
>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> employment discrimination claims. To read the guidlines go to:
>>>>>> http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html or peruse a
>>>>>> previous
>>>>>> post to gain an understanding of why an interviewer is not free to
>>>>>> choose
>>>>>> what questions they want to ask without concerns about scientific
>>>>>> validity,
>>>>>> adverse impact and the like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established that employment decisions
>>>>>> based on
>>>>>> race, color, religion, sex, or national origin are discriminatory and
>>>>>> illegal. In 1978, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of
>>>>>> Labor,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Department of Justice, and the Equal Opportunity Commission jointly
>>>>>> adopted
>>>>>> the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to establish
>>>>>> uniform
>>>>>> standards for employers for the use of selection procedures and to
>>>>>> address
>>>>>> adverse impact, validation, and record-keeping requirements. The
>>>>>> Uniform
>>>>>> Guidelines document a uniform federal position in the area of
>>>>>> prohibiting
>>>>>> discrimination in employment practices on the basis of race, color,
>>>>>> religion, sex, or national origin. The Uniform Guidelines outline the
>>>>>> requirements necessary for employers to legally defend employment
>>>>>> decisions
>>>>>> based upon overall selection processes and specific selection
>>>>>> procedures.
>>>>>> The Uniform Guidelines are not in and of themselves legislation or
> law;
>>>>>> however, through their reference in a number of judicial decisions,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> have been identified by the courts as a source of technical
> information
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have been given deference in litigation concerning employment issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to the Uniform Guidelines themselves, a separate document
>>>>>> entitled Questions and Answers on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee
>>>>>> Selection Procedures was released in 1979 to provide further
>>>>>> clarification
>>>>>> and a common interpretation of the Uniform Guidelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provisions of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What do the Uniform Guidelines cover?
>>>>>> The Uniform Guidelines provide standards for the proper use of
>>>>>> employment
>>>>>> testing, including the definition of discrimination in testing,
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> means of validating selection procedures which may be discriminatory,
>>>>>> acceptable methods of establishing and implementing cutoff scores (or
>>>>>> pass
>>>>>> points) on selection procedures, and the documentation of validity for
>>>>>> selection procedures. The Uniform Guidelines pertain to any and all
>>>>>> selection procedures which are used as the basis for any employment
>>>>>> decision, including hiring, promotion, demotion, referral, retention,
>>>>>> licensing and certification, training, and transfer.
>>>>>> (Section 2B)
>>>>>> Further, the Uniform Guidelines define selection procedures to include
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> following: any measure, combination of measures, or procedure used as
> a
>>>>>> basis for any employment decision. Selection procedures as defined by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Uniform Guidelines include the full range of assessment techniques,
>>>>>> including written exams, performance tests, training programs,
>>>>>> probationary
>>>>>> periods, interviews, reviews of experience or education, work samples,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> physical requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Sections 2C and 16Q; Q&As 5 and 6)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. According to the Uniform Guidelines, what is discrimination in
>>>>>> employment decisions?
>>>>>> Employer policies or practices which have an adverse impact on
>>>>>> employment
>>>>>> opportunities of any race, sex, or ethnic group are said to be
>>>>>> discriminatory and are illegal unless justified by business necessity.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> adverse impact exists for a specific selection procedure or an overall
>>>>>> selection process, according to the Uniform Guidelines, the selection
>>>>>> procedure must be validated in terms of establishing and documenting
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> relationship between the procedure and successful performance on the
>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Section 3A)
>>>>>> 3. How is discrimination or adverse impact defined by the Uniform
>>>>>> Guidelines?
>>>>>> The Uniform Guidelines have adopted a practical means of determining
>>>>>> adverse
>>>>>> impact in a selection procedure. This "rule of thumb" established by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Uniform Guidelines is known as the "4/5ths" or "80 percent" rule. To
>>>>>> determine whether a selection procedure violates the "4/5ths" or "80
>>>>>> percent" rule, the selection rate (or passing rate, where applicable)
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the group with the highest selection rate is compared to the selection
>>>>>> rates
>>>>>> of the other groups. If any of the comparison groups do not have a
>>>>>> passing
>>>>>> rate equal to or greater than 80 percent of the passing rate of the
>>>>>> highest
>>>>>> group, then it generally is held that evidence of adverse impact
> exists
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the particular selection procedure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Section 4D; Q&As 10, 12, 16, 17, 20 - 25) Further, under the Uniform
>>>>>> Guidelines, evidence of adverse impact, absent intent to discriminate
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> employer, is the same as explicit discrimination. Thus, an employer
> who
>>>>>> administers selection procedures which inadvertently result in adverse
>>>>>> impact is still held to the provisions and requirements of the Uniform
>>>>>> Guidelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. What must an employer do if it determines that the use of a
>>>>>> selection
>>>>>> procedure results in adverse impact?
>>>>>> If the use of a particular selection procedure results in adverse
>>>>>> impact,
>>>>>> the employer can eliminate the use of the procedure, thus eliminating
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> adverse impact. Or, if the employer wishes to continue to use the
>>>>>> procedure,
>>>>>> it must then demonstrate the "business necessity" of the selection
>>>>>> procedure- that is, demonstrate a clear relationship between the
>>>>>> selection
>>>>>> procedure and performance of the job. This process is known as
>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>> (Section 5D)
>>>>>> 5. What is validation and how is it demonstrated?
>>>>>> Validation as used in personnel psychology is the establishment of a
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>> relationship between a selection procedure and the requirements of
>>>>>> successful job performance. The Uniform Guidelines recognize three
>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>> of validity: content validity, criterion validity, and construct
>>>>>> validity.
>>>>>> The Uniform Guidelines outline technical standards and documentation
>>>>>> requirements to justify each of these three aspects of validity.
>>>>>> (Sections 5A and 5B; Q&As 32, 37 - 39, 54, 55) 6. What is content
>>>>>> validity?
>>>>>> As defined by the Uniform Guidelines, content validity involves
>>>>>> justifying
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> selection procedure ".by showing that it representatively samples
>>>>>> significant parts of the job." Evidence of content validity for a
>>>>>> selection
>>>>>> procedure should consist of data showing that the content of the
>>>>>> selection
>>>>>> procedure is representative of important aspects of performance on the
>>>>>> job.
>>>>>> (Section 5B) Section 14C of the Uniform Guidelines outlines the
>>>>>> technical
>>>>>> standards for content validity studies, and Section 15C outlines the
>>>>>> corresponding documentation requirements.
>>>>>> 7. What is criterion validity?
>>>>>> As defined by the Uniform Guidelines, criterion validity involves
>>>>>> justifying
>>>>>> a selection procedure ".by a statistical relationship between scores
> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> test [or selection procedure].and measures of job performance."
>>>>>> Evidence of
>>>>>> criterion validity should consist of empirical data demonstrating that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> selection procedure is predictive of or significantly correlated with
>>>>>> important elements of job performance. (Section 5B) Section 14B of the
>>>>>> Uniform Guidelines outlines the technical standards for criterion
>>>>>> validity
>>>>>> studies, and Section 15B outlines the corresponding documentation
>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>> 8. What is construct validity?
>>>>>> As defined by the Uniform Guidelines, "construct validity involves
>>>>>> identifying the psychological trait (the construct) which underlies
>>>>>> successful performance on the job and then devising a selection
>>>>>> procedure
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> measure the presence and degree of the construct." Evidence of
>>>>>> construct
>>>>>> validity should consist of data showing that the selection procedure
>>>>>> measures the degree to which candidates possess identifiable
>>>>>> characteristics
>>>>>> which have been determined to be important in successful job
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>> (Section 5B) Section 14D of the Uniform Guidelines outlines the
>>>>>> technical
>>>>>> standards for construct validity studies, and Section 15D outlines the
>>>>>> corresponding documentation requirements.
>>>>>> 9. Job Analysis
>>>>>> Any validation study should include a job analysis. The job analysis
>>>>>> methodology needs to provide the specific job information required for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> validation strategy used.
>>>>>> (Section 14A; Q&A 58)
>>>>>> 10. Consideration of Suitable Alternative Selection Procedures When
> two
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> more selection procedures are available for use and those procedures
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> ".substantially equally valid for a given purpose.," the procedure
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been demonstrated to have less adverse impact should be used. (Section
>>>>>> 3B;
>>>>>> Q&As 31, 50, 52) 11. Method of Use of Selection Procedures (i.e.,
> using
>>>>>> selection procedures for ranking vs. pass/fail decisions) According to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Uniform Guidelines, if a selection procedure is used on a ranking
>>>>>> basis,
>>>>>> ".and that method of use has a greater adverse impact than use on an
>>>>>> appropriate pass/fail basis," sufficient evidence of validity and
>>>>>> utility
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> support the use on a ranking basis should be demonstrated. (Section
> 5G;
>>>>>> Q&As
>>>>>> 47 and 62) 12. How should cutoff scores (or pass points) be
>>>>>> established?
>>>>>> When cutoff scores (or pass points) are established for selection
>>>>>> procedures, they should be set at a level consistent with expectations
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> acceptable job performance.
>>>>>> Further, the Uniform Guidelines allow for cutoff scores (or pass
>>>>>> points) to
>>>>>> be set higher than minimal levels of proficiency in cases where
>>>>>> candidates
>>>>>> scoring below the higher cut point would have little or no chance of
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> selected. (Section 5H) 13. Disparate Treatment "A selection procedure
> -
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> though validated against job performance in accordance with [the
>>>>>> Uniform
>>>>>> Guidelines] - can not be imposed upon members of a race, sex, or
> ethnic
>>>>>> group where other employees, applicants, or members have not been
>>>>>> subjected
>>>>>> to that standard."
>>>>>> (Section 11)
>>>>>> 14. Equal Employment Opportunity
>>>>>> The use of selection procedures which have been validated pursuant to
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> guidelines does not relieve employers of the obligation to ensure
> equal
>>>>>> employment opportunities for all candidates. (Section 13A; Q&As 29 and
>>>>>> 30)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Ken Barz <zrab123@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, at least be glad that you had a pharma company to interview
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>>> just had three pharma companies decide to consolidate operations out
>>>>>>> of here and onto either coast. That leaves a very small pool of
>>>>>>> companies left
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> a bunch of people wondering what to do when they grow up (again.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Joe Matise" <snoopy369@GMAIL.COM>
>>>>>>> To: <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:30 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rant on a pharma job interview:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your answers were technically right, I imagine it's how you said it
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> the problem... :) 3 in SAS and 6 in SQL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not a pharm programmer so I of course can't answer your other >>
>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> suppose this to be a test of knowledge of DB operations perhaps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cartesian product (a bit sloppily):
>>>>>>>> proc sql;
>>>>>>>> create table t1t2_cart as
>>>>>>>> select * from t1, t2
>>>>>>>> where t1.x=t2.x;
>>>>>>>> quit;
>>>>>>>> NOTE: Table WORK.T1T2_CART created, with 6 rows and 3 columns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:23 PM, SUBSCRIBE SAS-L Dan
>>>>>>>> <deniseyu001@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi. SASLeres:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are there any pharm SAS programmers out there? I recently had a
> job
>>>>>>>>> interview with one of a big pharm company. Please allow me to not
>>>>>>>>> disclose its name. I think that the questions asked by the newly
>>>>>>>>> hired manager are, at least, ridiculers. This position is a DB
>>>>>>>>> programmer, not a
>>>>>> statistical
>>>>>>>>> programmer. At certain point she asked how many obs in the final
>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>> if merge two data sets with same multiple BY variable values? Like
>>>>>> below:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data t1 ;
>>>>>>>>> input x y ;
>>>>>>>>> datalines ;
>>>>>>>>> 1 2
>>>>>>>>> 1 3
>>>>>>>>> 1 4
>>>>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>>>> run;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data t2 ;
>>>>>>>>> input x z ;
>>>>>>>>> datalines;
>>>>>>>>> 1 20
>>>>>>>>> 1 30
>>>>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>>>> run;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> data t1t2 ;
>>>>>>>>> merge t1 t2 ;
>>>>>>>>> by x ;
>>>>>>>>> run;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And how many obs in final data set when you get Cartesian product
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> using SQL?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expressed my opinion that when merge, there will be note reading
>>>>>>>>> "more than one data set of BY values" and final obs will be 3. For
>>>>>>>>> the SQL part, I expressed that I seldom, and I quickly followed
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> I never used SQL to get Cartesian product and if this is the case
>>>>>>>>> then the number of obs for the final data set will be 6 (2x3).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not need to say that I failed the interview. The things I
> want
>>>>>>>>> to rant about are: even though job market is dismal at this time,
>>>>>>>>> how could some one to ask question like these? If there are pharm
>>>>>>>>> programmers out
>>>>>> there,
>>>>>>>>> Could any one share with me the experience that at what point of
>>>>>>>>> your programming practice did you use SQL to get Cartesian product
>>>>>>>>> and merge two data sets using multiple by values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unhappy Dan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
| 
