Welcome to the GradCafe

Hello!  Welcome to The GradCafe Forums.You're welcome to look around the forums and view posts.  However, like most online communities you must register before you can create your own posts.  This is a simple, free process that requires minimal information. Benefits of membership:

  • Participate in discussions
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Search forums
  • Removes some advertisements (including this one!)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About footballman2399

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    United States
  • Application Season
    2015 Fall
  • Program

Recent Profile Visitors

3,023 profile views
  1. I think UF and Purdue are solid choices because they have a reputation for admitting a lot of international students. You might want to check with your undergrad institution's faculty to see where they've placed people before. I'll admit the B+ in Analysis doesn't look great but since it is a school in China it might hold different weight (I am not sure about this).
  2. If you search the profiles of admitted students from 2015, I recall one student who had maybe a slightly stronger academic record than year with a strangely low GRE score. He was able to get into several schools like Penn State and Texas A&M. I feel like it's a risk though. The marginal benefit from taking the exam / studying more is far going to exceed the marginal cost.
  3. Yeah I agree with @marmle. It's too early for you to decide if you even want to do grad school in stats. In my undergrad career, I went from Finance to Economics to Statistics to ultimately Biostatistics. That being said, I don't think it's really worth applying to NW unless you really, really want to be in the Chicago area (and if that's the case, add U Chicago to your list).
  4. I had a friend who was flown out for UNC Stats after he was admitted, but they only refund very low amounts (I think it was < 200) for flights and he had to stay with a student. Couldn't tell you anything about the other schools, but in my experience all schools will refund you at least partially, some will refund the entire cost. It really depends on the program.
  5. I actually think a 164 is sufficient to get into schools in the 10-20 range (at least from my experience it works). If you're looking top-10 then maybe retake it.
  6. I second this and would add it may be difficult for you to get recommendations from Pitt if you plan on leaving just to join a different program.
  7. I definitely think the OP can get into a top-10 stats program as-is. Top-5 public schools include Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, and UVA, all of which have good math departments. Secondly, ODEs isn't even really necessary for statistics. I would wager the majority of students applying to master's degrees don't have a lot of math courses under their belt, which is why they're going for Master's than PhD. I seriously doubt the majority of students applying for master's degrees have taken Analysis I and this person has taken Analysis II (getting an A) and Complex. I wouldn't waste time taking the math GRE. I'm pretty confident you can get into a top-10, but apply to the 11-20 range to be safe.
  8. UF and UIC are the only ones I'm familiar with. Are you very particular to UMass right now or something?
  9. Yeah I'll admit I know next to nothing about VCU. UF's program is housed in their public health school, but there is either very little or no interaction between the stats and biostats departments. Still, I think there are some reasonably strong faculty members in UF's biostats department. And at least the option exists to take classes at a strong stats department and maybe get co-advised.
  10. I'd say the only ones that are really worth considering are UF and UIC. UIC has a legitimate ranking, so I'd choose there out of the above schools. Plus it's in Chicago which is great.
  11. A&M has a pretty solid track record of placing into academia and industry, so in case you change your mind, it might be the best option. UCLA does have a great program and a few people working on machine learning, so if you're absolutely positive about industry, I would consider there. Florida, as you say, is more of a traditional program and actually places very well in academia relative to its ranking. The industry placements I would say are just okay. George Michailidis at UF does some machine learning work, so while they may not have traditional coursework, the option to do ML work still exists. However, as I understand it, he is still supervising (remotely) several students at Michigan, and he already has quite a few students at Florida, so I don't think he'd really be able to spare a lot of time.
  12. That's a bit of a different comparison. UCLA is pretty far removed from Harvard in the rankings but Harvard and UW are tied. If this is supposed to be a brand name argument, I can see your point but I feel for PhDs the program reputation matters more than the school reputation, particularly for academic jobs. In industry placement, Harvard may have the edge, but I also feel like this depends on which company is recruiting. If it's a pharma company, I'm certain that they know that UW and Harvard are pretty much identical. I think that @Biostat_student_22 makes the best points. You really could not go wrong with either school. I would choose the one that has the most comfortable living setting for you and that has the more sociable / friendly students (the second one is overlooked a lot in my opinion). Good luck, @shill and congratulations on your stellar admissions!
  13. I was referring to strictly the master's programs, not the PhD. The USNWR rankings are really for PhD programs.
  14. Yeah I kind of agree with this. I would say you couldn't go wrong either way. If you are absolutely sure you want to do genetics, then clearly Michigan is the way to go. If you have no idea what you want to do, maybe UNC has a slight edge. Since the program prestige is roughly identical, you might also consider other factors like climate, setting, etc.
  15. It seems to me Duke's program is more theoretical, and given that you were an econ major (I was too), I definitely think that this will boost your profile for a PhD. I also wouldn't worry too much about recruitment. I imagine Duke, with its brand name, places people nationally and not just regionally. Even if they do place regionally, the Research Triangle has probably more technology companies per capita than any other region in the US save for maybe Silicon Valley. Going off newstyle, I won't deny Berkeley is in a better location, but I think the claim that it has a better reputation is objectively false (equal maybe). If you're interested in Bayesian stats, Duke is THE place to be. Even people on this forum with absolutely stellar profiles get rejected to Duke's PhD program because it's that competitive.