Rob1234

There have already been a number of suggestions, each point well-justified too. But I would still like to throw in my opinion mainly because, I can very much relate to your problem given that I am having to choose between Duke, Chicago and Harvard now and am finding it an increasingly difficult task. I was inclined towards Duke initially due to my Bayesian research interests but now I am having to re-think after asking people around. The Duke Stat dept doesn't seem to be a very popular choice which may be attributed strictly to the cult Bayesian following that you mentioned. However, in the last 4-5 years the academic and industry brand value of Duke has increased quite a lot but still, I get the general feeling that once I step into Duke, the opportunities will still be quite limited academic career wise (unlike in industry) and mostly centered around other Bayesian departments (from looking at the Alumni positions and asking seniors at Duke). However, 5 years down the line the academic market can also open up though there is still an element of doubt. Also I think the coursework at Duke is quite limited (unlike Berkeley or Seattle). But on the positive side, the research productivity of Duke is extremely high and they mainly work on modern research areas. Also, because of SAMSI and UNC and NCSU close by, it is quite easy to build your contacts. Another thing I've heard is that the work environment in Duke is extremely friendly and they are very flexible in terms of working in and out of the department too. I think most people you ask may be a bit biased towards Berkeley and Seattle as these two are broader in terms of research interests, have better reputation and better rankings. However, Duke has many positives too and it seems you may be a little inclined towards Duke too because of the research area of interest, two body problem etc. And from what I have realized now myself, seeking suggestions can never give you a clear solution as people tend to have varied opinions and there is no uniformly best solution in your case. So, you have to fix your priorities considering all options and then choose one that you think would be the best fit (and this, from personal experience, is a pretty hard thing to do especially given your options).

@ilovefish...I did consider Upenn...but I find they have a very strong focus (in their research areas) towards job market. Also it didn't seem to me that many people work on areas of Bayesian analysis and Monte Carlo....that's why I'm not giving it much of a thought...

Hey, I am currently stuck between two PhD offers- Duke Statistics and Harvard Statistics. My preferences are Bayesian analysis, Monte Carlo methods, Spatial Statistics, Machine learning among others. I am not sure if the brand name of Harvard can make a significant difference for academic placements after PhD and if going to Duke will limit my scope of research. However Harvard has a very small department and a problem of tenure track. Can you suggest career-wise and also from the point of view of research, which place would be better to opt and which people would be better to work with?

Please suggest which of the two programs would be a better fit both career-wise and academically. I have interest in Bayesian Analysis, Monte Carlo Methods, Statistical Machine Learning. I am more inclined right now towards staying in academia after PhD than going to the job market.

I have recently got an offer from Harvard Stat department. While Harvard is a highly reputed University no doubt, but I do not have much idea about how good their Statistics program is. I have heard great things about their Biostat program but would like to do my PhD in Statistics. It would be great to know where Harvard Statistics stands compared to other programs like Stanford, Chicago, Seattle among others.The faculty though small, looked pretty strong though. Anybody has any views regarding this?

I heard from Harvard 3-4 days back. They fixed a date for an interview over phone on 19th Feb. Yes, I am an international student.

I got a mail from Harvard regarding an interview...they informed me the interview would take place on 19th of Feb. It seemed from the mail they sent, it would be just an informal chat with one of the faculty members, for around 30-45 mins.

I would make the following tiers Tier I : Stanford, UC-Berkeley, Harvard (Biostatistics) Tier II : Washington-Seattle, Chicago, Duke, UPenn Tier III : CMU, Harvard(Stat), UW-Madison, Michigan, Columbia Tier IV : NCSU, Rutgers, Iowa State, Cornell, UCLA However a lot depends on personal interests, depending on which the tiers may change. Go through the webpages of the schools that have offered you, look at the research interests of the faculty members and then take a call whether or not to accept it.

I have got an offer from University of Chicago, llinois Statistics department and have also had encouraging conversations through Skype about a possible offer in near future from Duke University and University of Pennsylvania. The suggested financial support for Upenn is more than both Chicago and Duke, which are around the same. I would like to do my PhD in Theoretical Statistics but I am in a fix which offer should I choose. What do you guys suggest and how would you rank these three Universities??

I have become very familiar with these Skype interviews having given three of them already. The first thing to understand is that if the Professor wants to meet you, then your application must have impressed him and the grad school as a whole. The basic questions they asked me were about my internship (at ETH Zurich), my career goals, which other Universities I have applied and what preference do I give to that grad school. If you have already got some offers, they may ask you how you rate that grad school relative to the offers you have got. Then they would tell you to ask them any questions you may have. I always like questioning them a lot, as they more often than not give you more knowledge about the campus and the environment. And 15 mins can easily extend to half an hour and more as has happened in my case.

If it was to choose between Berkeley PhD and Minnesota PhD, I would have chosen the former. Reasons being the stature of Berkeley, the weather and also you shall have opportunities to work in collaboration with Statistics department, which is probably one of the best there is. But to be frank, if it is a choice of doing Masters against doing a PhD, one should always go for PhD. Minnesota has a great Biostats Department, focused primarily to the application of Bayesian methods in Biostatistics and the faculty there is pretty strong.