I can speak directly and precisely about this question. My title is 'data analyst' and I have a Master's degree in statistics. I would consider myself a real statistician in the flesh. I guess you could say there is disagreement between what a data analyst, data scientist, or statistician do on a day-to-day basis. And this varies by industry. I sure as hell do my best to incorporate my love of modeling in my job.
To me personally a data analyst is someone doing analysis that lacks the understanding of the math behind what he does. That is precisely what I am. I have lots of related degrees, but none focused on the math. I am not smart enough to do the math in honesty.
I am not sure what a real "statistician" is. If you mean someone with a doctorate in statistics you probably will never work with one unless you are at a university. Or work for a very small number of government agencies like the FED or Census Bureau.
I would say an analyst doesn't necessarily have to be or have explicit statistical education. Could have an amalgam of other things if not noted. Statistician would likely need to have that training. Historically, I would imagine statisticians may have a higher average salary given the training. But with analyst being a more vague label, you likely have a wider distribution of salaries.
Me too, except i am ''biostatistician". the nice thing about stats is that it is still sort of an engineering job, which means you can make a living without 5 phd degrees. Alot of research jobs now you cant sweep the floor without a phd due to degree inflation.
you make it sound like spotting a Siberian white tiger in the wild or something. I actually think they are more like do-do birds, in that they reproduce in great numbers but are scarce due to poor survival fitness in most places.
. But with analyst being a more vague label, you likely have a wider distribution of salaries.
I would say that I have a little prejudice. In that given the spectrum and total number of people with an analyst title - there are definitely some that are not doing any analyses or substantial analyses. And there is nothing wrong with that, but there are people with the title doing substantial analytic work, just not the majority. I would imagine that the statistician title is becoming less common outside of academia and government. This is partially due to the data scientist, which many lack that stats fundamentals. But there are so many of them, there are some really smart people in the area as well given the shear numbers.
In my company, there are a lot of data analyst titles that have nothing to do with statistics. They do analyze data, but more in the way an accountant would analyze debits and credits, profit and loss.
Again in my unit the data analyst are all SQL people who do no statistics.
I think meeting someone who has a PHD in statistics is pretty much, except at a University and a handful of government agencies, the same probability as meeting a Siberian Tiger. And that counts doctorates in Psychology and Medicine not (what I think of a doctorate in statistics) in math or statistics departments.
It is not an easy job, because analysts must have a lot of information, logical and critical thinking, and the ability to calculate. I think that to understand and analyze any statistics, solve problems based on reliable data, and in such cases, I would use different assistants to simplify their work, from calculators, to the converter with cm to meters, for a more convenient way to solve problems.