Jump to content

bayessays

Moderators
  • Posts

    1,238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Everything posted by bayessays

  1. Not sure if you're trolling about your GPA. Maybe you won't get into Stanford, but you'll get into plenty of top 20 programs and probably quite a few top 10.
  2. Both are good departments, so tuition is probably the biggest thing, so I'd really figure out if you can get an assistantship if that's going to make a big difference between the two. UNC hands down wins for the job market with Raleigh-Durham nearby. Madison is a pretty small city - they have 10 data science jobs posted on linkedin right now in the whole city. As for curriculum, 10 years ago I probably would've said that UNC's operations research/optimization focus is a little weird, but honestly I've seen so many data science roles lately that are looking for that type of background for their supply chains, so you might have an opportunity to set yourself apart there. If you don't have personal reasons to be in the midwest, I don't see many huge advantages to UW besides maybe the tuition and the fact that it's a bigger/(more fun?) city (and only you can decide if that outweighs the other stuff). Realistically, they are both great departments, so I don't think your choice will have a huge impact on your career - I'd prioritize which you think you'll enjoy more and leave you with less debt.
  3. Anything - obviously a more involved project is better, but you just want people that are able to speak on your ability to work independently. But obviously also just choose people that you think will write the most positive letters. I don't know anything about this at all and I don't know if this is something you are interested in at all, but some schools may have special programs available to Hispanic applicants or may go out of their way to recruit more diverse classes. I have some departments in mind that are more explicit about this. A lot of programs will consider you for their master's as a backup, so you don't necessarily have to apply separately. You could always apply to a wide range of programs and try to see how the results go while you're still working, and then narrow down more after seeing how the first rounds of applications go.
  4. In that case, your math background is actually really solid for most programs. I'd figure out your letter writers - even if you weren't super close, are there professors who stand out in your mind as being supportive? Even if you don't have "real" research, is there a professor you did a project for that could stand out? If you can throw together 3 decent letters, I'd apply a little higher than what I stated above, and throw in some master's as a backup. I definitely think you belong in a program that's higher than what I stated above, but you just gotta put a couple pieces together in terms of selling your profile.
  5. What type of school did you take the math classes at? Was it an online university? Your biggest issue obviously is that you don't have any letters of recommendation, so that will make it very difficult to get in anywhere since there isn't any research or pedigree that makes you a standout candidate. In your current shape, I'd probably start the search at US News rank 60 and below for statistics PhDs, and 25 and below for biostatistics. You would benefit a lot from a master's program where you could form some relationships with professors, get some research experience, and drastically improve your results.
  6. Think about it this way: if you want to study probability because it's only really a research area at MSU, then who will hire you afterwards besides MSU? Most departments have no interest in hiring people who are not doing statistics research. Overall, I think Florida is the best department by a pretty wide margin. I don't think there's a huge difference between ISU and MSU, but they both have a few good professors who have students that get faculty jobs.
  7. NYU does not a curriculum that will help you get into a PhD program at all, so if that is a concern, choose UNC.
  8. Have you ever lived somewhere that's not California? Seattle's weather concerns are overblown - it's less rainy/cloudy than many major cities on the east coast, and the winters are relatively mild. It's not like going to Chicago or Minnesota. But, obviously it's not Santa Barbara, and if weather is a huge concern for you, then only you know how much that would affect your happiness. I think the best thing is to really think about your goals. You should be able to get a decent job coming from any stats PhD program, but Washington is really in a different tier than the other two and I think you'd have more options, especially if you're interested in machine learning. I think that holds even if you want to move back to California - you'l have more options in San Francisco after attending Washington due to the prestige of the program and your opportunity to do cutting-edge ML stuff. On the other hand, I'm looking at UCSB's PhD placements and they are still pretty good: https://www.pstat.ucsb.edu/graduate/alumni Location is huge though, and it's 5 or 6 years of your life, so if you think you'd be much happier in California, you can definitely be successful at any of the programs.
  9. Building on stxnre's observation, I think that you basically have to think about the financial situation in terms of what you'd have to give up. I think you'd be able to have a nice studio apartment downtown and eat out regularly in Ann Arbor, versus Berkeley where you'd almost certainly have to have roommates and you might not have the money to enjoy the area as much.
  10. At least in the near past, people with a Master's usually finished a year faster at Michigan. I wouldn't worry about anything you mention in this paragraph - if you're working on your dissertation at either of these schools, I can't imagine any situation in which they don't fund you unless you start taking like 8 years. Obviously the warm weather is a huge factor, but Ann Arbor is a very nice place to live. I'd visit both if you can. They're both good programs - I don't think you can go wrong. Both are schools that have good stat programs with lots of faculty to draw from - Berkeley does have stronger ties to stats department just because of the way the department is designed, but there are definitely people in biostat at Michigan working with stat faculty. I'd ask students about the requirements - a 20 hour a week teaching assistantship is often 5 hours or less, at every program I've ever seen. Once you start your dissertation, your "research assistantship" is usually just doing your dissertation.
  11. All of those departments are prestigious enough where, even if you would want to go into academia, I think you could easily choose any of them. It sounds like you want to go to UT-Austin. Read what their recent PhD grads are doing, lots of good data scientist jobs: https://stat.utexas.edu/alumni-and-friends/phd-and-postdoc-alumni
  12. I think you're right about Chicago's courses being more theoretical - from what I can tell on their website, their MS students have a lot of overlap with the PhD students' classes, and their PhD program is intense. I don't think this means you'll be less prepared for industry (you'll have to do a lot of stuff outside your classes for that, anyways - you absolutely cannot rely on a short Python course to learn coding for a data science job), but it would mean your life would be harder while in the program. I think all the programs you've listed are fantastic schools and I don't think you could go wrong with any of them. Chicago may have a little more of a "wow" factor, though.
  13. Obviously I understand your desire for privacy, but can you explain a little more what a "solid" private school is - I'm guessing you don't go to Stanford/CalTech, but is your school on the level of USC or Pomona, or something like Gonzaga? I think your reaches are pretty far reaches given that you don't have much research and (I'm assuming) don't go to an elite school. From the limited details, I'd say: Reaches - NC State, Texas A&M, UT Austin, Matches - Illinois, Virginia Tech, Virginia, George Washington, Boston, George Mason, UMBC A lot probably depends on what type of school you go to and how substantial your research this summer is and the type of letter you can get from it. I know you're a math major, but you didn't include a lot of details about your exact coursework. If you took the minimum required math at a low-ranked school, that will be very different than someone who took a bunch of high-level or graduate-level classes at USC. You may want to look at biostat programs too.
  14. Your other program is not forcing you to make a decision until April 15th presumably. I'd wait as long as possible to accept another offer, and I'd be expressing my strong interest in Stanford even after April 15th if it's your first choice, even if that means later reneging on your original decision. The only real negative to waiting is that you are left in a state of limbo for a while and you would have to wait to sign a lease for the fall.
  15. I've never heard of an interview asking linear algebra questions anywhere, but anything is possible - you should really just be prepared to talk about your research and your interest in the program. I had an interview once that got a little technical about statistics stuff, but I was coming in with a master's degree and professional work as a statistician. It's really going to come down to the individual interviewer - there are probably weird people who are going to quiz you about irrelevant math, but there's not really anything you can do to prepare for that anyways.
  16. I think your research is fine - research is a big commitment, so I don't think it's worth it to go out of your way to get publications or anything like that. If you have three letters from tenure-track professors in stats/math at one of the top schools in Canada, and they are very positive letters, you're in great shape. A master's can definitely help, especially as an international student, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. If I were you, I'd just expand your list - apply to additional schools like UT-Austin, Ohio State, Illinois, that are great programs but not at the very top. See how your results are, and re-evaluate if you need to.
  17. You've basically listed all of the most competitive programs in the country. You might have a chance at them, but this cannot be your entire list of schools. Your profile is strong in that you have good grades from a good school and a a very strong math background - your research experience is sufficient, but without publications doesn't really stand out (at least from the details you've provided). I'd widen your range through the top 30 on US News.
  18. They are not technical interviews - generally, they'll ask you to talk about why you want a PhD in statistics, ask you about your research projects, etc. - you should be able to talk about these things. You might want to have some questions prepared for them about their program. Definitely not going to be quizzed on material in your classes, and if you are, I'd take that as a massive red flag of a dysfunctional department.
  19. I would say 167+, do not retake. A 170 looks nice, but I don't think people are going to draw much distinction above 167. 165 is borderline, and 164 and below is where I think people should definitely consider retaking for top programs.
  20. Hard to say since you didn't list your specific grades in undergraduate math courses. If you got Bs in your undergraduate math classes, no, I don't think your graduate GPA makes up for it because usually grad school grades are inflated so 3.88 is average.
  21. I think most of your reach list is not worth applying to - I don't think you have any chance of being admitted to Columbia or Cornell stats PhDs. The realistic/easy choices are things I would consider "matches" for your profile but I don't think places like ND/BU/UMass/UVA are safe guaranteed admissions. Your results will probably be all over the place considering your undergraduate GPA.
  22. I'd say you have a decent shot, yes. They're all prestigious schools, so I don't think any of them is a guarantee, but I think the types of schools you're applying to are appropriate for your profile and I don't think you should go much lower for biostat. I feel like switching Minnesota from stat to biostat would make your list feel much safer to me. (But they're incredibly different programs, so this is up to you and your preferences for research) As for being an east Asian male, I can only say that each person on an admissions committee is just a person making a somewhat arbitrary decision from a pile of great candidates, and their own personal views may consciously or unconsciously affect their choices. Overall, I'd say you are basically in the same position as domestic white male applicants.
  23. Honestly I think that's a great list for you - I think about half of those schools are strong matches and then a lot of (realistic) reaches that are reaches for almost everyone. As for digging into the stat vs biostat choice, I sort of wonder about your choices for Duke, UNC, and Yale. For Duke, their biostat department is relatively new (I think this is one of the safer options on your list along with Emory and Iowa State) whereas their statistics department is elite. But for Yale, you made the opposite choice of Duke - choosing the elite stats department over the relatively middle-of-the-road biostat program. For UNC, I don't think you can go wrong with either department, but UNC's stats department is sort of unique in having a big probability focus. This might be a pro or con depending on your interests. I don't think you can go wrong either way, really.
  24. I think you'll be in good shape. Focus on getting strong letters from your research advisors. 5-15 on US news is doable, but I'd apply to plenty of programs in the 15-30 range as well. Your questions: 1. First, I don't really think they are essentially equivalent for everyone - they are for most students though. If you want to study probability theory or extremely theoretical statistics, you will want to go to a statistics department. If you only want to do applied research (not be a professor) and don't really like hard math, you will want to go to a biostatistics department. If you're in between, it probably doesn't matter much. Your profile will be very good for either type of program, but I certainly think you have a much better shot at Harvard/Washington/Michigan if you apply to their biostat programs rather than their stat programs. 2. Most statistics students do not do research their first year, so I wouldn't bother. This may vary for certain programs, but most students will probably not be doing this and it is not expected. 3. I would not worry about this at all. Differential equations is irrelevant, and one semester of linear algebra is fine. Your math background is sufficient. The only thing that could improve it really is to take lots of difficult proof-based classes/graduate classes to boost your profile for top 10 stat programs, and this is definitely not worth the effort.
  25. Start with US News, I'd focus mostly on programs in the 10-60 range. See what locations you like and look at those department pages - most programs have a faculty page that will list research interests. Most programs will have one or two faculty that focus on Bayesian stuff - programs that focus on Bayesian stats include Duke, Texas, Missouri, Iowa. You'll have to dig a little harder depending on what exactly you mean by "machine learning." Also look at biostatistics programs in the top 20, as your profile will play well there. I'd talk to your professors, and focus on securing good letters of recommendation from research advisors - you go to a top 15 stats program, so try to take advantage of the vast connections of your department if possible.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use