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!)

cyberwulf

Members
  • Content count

    641
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

cyberwulf last won the day on November 18 2016

cyberwulf had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About cyberwulf

  • Rank
    Latte Macchiato

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Application Season
    Not Applicable
  • Program
    Biostatistics (faculty)

Recent Profile Visitors

11,036 profile views
  1. I'd posit that you want to learn applied statistics from faculty that 1) have deep insight about and understanding of statistics, and 2) are doing important, high-profile work in applied statistics. Such faculty are likely to be strong researchers, and hence working at departments that are highly-ranked.
  2. You won't be able to get any meaningful research experience in a few months, so I would suggest taking more advanced mathematical coursework. Your "in" to a good program will be preparation, i.e., that you have a more extensive mathematical background than many applicants. You are hoping that schools will therefore view you as a "safer" bet to succeed in the coursework than others with less preparation.
  3. I think that Q score's "good enough" that, combined with your excellent grades in a large number of math courses, it won't hurt you that much. I don't think it's worth changing your original list of schools dramatically.
  4. Yeah, hard to chance a profile with one outlying component like that. Your results would probably be very heterogeneous; some better schools like UNC, Purdue, and NC State might not be too bothered by it while other lower-ranked ones could consider it a deal-breaker. I suspect Berkeley and Michigan will be pretty tough nuts to crack even with some improvement in your GRE score.
  5. Agree completely. Those GRE scores are a real anomaly given the rest of your profile.
  6. Not much to say, really. You're a strong candidate, so you should apply to all the good places in the places you'd like to live. Stanford is a tough nut to crack for Canadians, but seems like a logical addition to your list (though you might have to take the Math GRE, which is a pain).
  7. I didn't mean to imply that it was trivial for anyone to figure out which schools fall in which category; rather, I was pointing out that it was possible to reliably rate an applicant's chances in this way using a relatively small amount of objective data that didn't include squishier things like "research interests" and "availability of a suitable advisor".
  8. This might be true in the social sciences, but it's not how things work in fields like stat and biostat, where students are admitted chiefly on the basis of their academic record and research potential and only identify research interests and advisors once they've been in the program for a couple of years. Given a student's profile (even just basic school/GPA/GRE information), in our field(s) it's usually pretty easy to figure which programs are reaches, which are decent shots, and which are quite likely to admit them.
  9. There are two main reasons that it is harder to be admitted to stat and biostat programs as an international student: 1) Funding for international students is (somewhat) more limited. NIH and NSF grants are only available to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, so a department is more likely to have to "pay in full" to support an international PhD student. I've heard people on this board mention that international students are "more expensive" because their tuition is higher, but many graduate schools either a. charge the same rate across all students or b. have things arranged so that students with RA/TA support (i.e., all PhD students) all cost the same amount. In any case, I've never heard a faculty member at another institution mention tuition differential as a reason for not accepting more international students. 2) Students for whom English is not their native language face the double challenge of learning the technical material and learning to communicate (write, give presentations) in English. Since a lot of research and collaboration is about communication, the path to academic success is objectively more difficult for non-native English speakers. Since it is difficult to precisely quantify the English proficiency of most international applicants (the TOEFL is a lot like the GRE Q; if you score too low, that's a bad sign, but above a certain level there isn't a whole lot of information), admissions committees are basically hoping that by raising the bar high enough, they will admit international students so talented that their raw ability will allow them to overcome any communication difficulties. @biostatboi: As a Canadian, you're subject to #1 but not #2. So, Canadians (and Australians, Brits, etc., but they rarely apply) occupy this sort of halfway point between U.S. and international applicants. My guess is that aggregated admissions data would bear this out; it is somewhat harder for a Canadian to gain admission than an American, but easier for a Canadian than someone from China or India. Bottom line: Your profile is quite strong; you should apply to good places (your list seems pretty reasonable), and I think you'll get into a few.
  10. I'd say that not much has changed, reputation-wise, in the past five years. Brown is still a very good (though very small) program, which probably ranks around #10.
  11. The math GRE is most likely to benefit a student with an otherwise excellent record but who has taken relatively little math (for a top program, say "only" up to undergraduate real analysis and abstract algebra). Then, a good score in the math GRE (which I would qualify as about 75-80th percentile) would be helpful. Another student profile that could benefit is someone who has a very good but not outstanding record in math classes, but absolutely crushes the math GRE (say 90-95th percentile). In both cases, the math GRE score adds useful additional information to the profile which could elevate them enough get into a place they might otherwise not.
  12. This just isn't done in the field, since you are (typically) being admitted to a department and not to work in an individual faculty member's "lab". You didn't miss out on anything by not doing it.
  13. Yes, this. Indeed, the top departments tend to be the most "hands off" because they have (on average) stronger students who can work quasi-independently. As you move down in the ranks, faculty often play a bigger and bigger role in driving student research and publications.
  14. Most places that do interviews have already ranked the candidates before the interview. A great interview might bump you up a few spots, a not-so-great one might move you down a bit, but in most cases your rank probably won't change much. It's possible that you were just outside the admissions line even before you visited, and your interview wasn't "great'' enough to change that.
  15. Interesting discussion. A couple of thoughts: 1) It's very hard to judge placement records on the basis of a few years of data, because the sample sizes are relatively small and 2-3 strong students can make it seem like a program is doing great over a short timespan. Complicating matters is the fact that, starting about five years ago, there was a massive shift in hiring practices such that it has become uncommon for students to land jobs at top 10-15 departments without first completing a postdoc. 2) That being said, I just don't see the evidence that Michigan has had great placements in recent years. They are almost certainly outpaced by Hopkins, and likely UW and Harvard as well. Berkeley and Minnesota have also had some notable successes. 3) biostat_prof doesn't seem to drop in on these boards much anymore, so it's a bit unfair to take shots at her/him, but they are clearly a UNC "homer". I have also been involved in admissions at a good program and it is objectively false that the incoming class at places like UNC/Michigan/Minnesota/Berkeley is on par (in terms of pedigree, preparation, etc.) with those at the "top 3". Some schools do a better job than others at maximizing the talent they get, but there is clearly a talent gradient as you move down the rankings.