tchuynh

The statistics program I am in is top ten, there are a handful of schools that would be considered better. Graduate students are mostly international and undergraduate students are mostly domestic. The competition in graduate school is global. The courses taken in graduate school are harder and the competition is certainly stiffer at my graduate program than any undergraduate group in the country. A good gpa at a good undergrad seems to imply a high probability of success in grad school, but a good gpa at a high ranked graduate program implies that success is certain. So we have a probabilistic event compared to an event on a set of measure one. Furthermore, few undergraduates do not have research at the graduate level. At my institution the masters and phd students are in the same group, take the same classes, and are on the same track until qualifiers. Masters can switch to phd track at faculty discretion, which I was offered but I can't stay in this area. Only half of undergraduate courses are major related, so 60 relevant credits. Only about 45 of those will be on the application. I am on my second masters so I will have over 30 from my first master plus 9 next semester. About 45 credits for the undergrad compared to about 40 for me. Isn't getting a 4.0 at a high ranked institution after getting bad gpa at a low ranked institution a testament to a persons perseverance and resilience. A low gpa at a low level may imply a lack of ability, but a high gpa at a higher level would contradict and override that implication. If a player walked away from a junior tennis career then came back to the game ten years later to win a pro championship that player still has a lack of ability? This is holding onto a belief that is contradicted by the facts of reality, it defies logic. This is all I have to say about this. Try as I may, I can not provide an objective opinion on my own profile so I will await the decisions for next year. Good luck everyone and I hope to see some of you out there!

I have interests in finance, specifically extreme value theory and copulas. I am applying to princeton carnegie because they have researchers in financial math. I am applying to "Iowa region" because my girlfriend is there. I don't mind much about the ranking of the school I attend, the second list are the first schools that come to mind that are near that area and/or have researchers in finance. I would say that a master's in science from a top ten statistics ranking institution would be a big boost in my profile. I have gotten all As in 2/3 of classes required and can upgrade to a PhD but this school is not near Iowa. Why is there so much emphasis on the prestige and gpa of your undergraduate institution? Half of the classes are general education and aren't relevant. Few classes if any taken in undergrad are at the level of mathematical rigor that is required to do meaningful research. Why is more emphasis put on this part of your career rather than the more relevant coursework and research experience at the graduate level? Getting a good gpa at a good undergrad requires focus at an early age. You have to be in a family environment that values education. I didn't start there but I did find that this is what I want to do. I have turned down a few good job offers and made other sacrifices to be a part of this science and don't understand why my grades in poetry/gym-class/history are being held against in spite of a proven track record of dedication and aptitude.

Bachelor's in applied math at top 50 university. GPA: 2.8 Master's in financial mathematics (class of 2013) gpa: 3.8 Master's of science in Statistics (expected class of May 2014) gpa: 4.0 (so far) No research experience yet. Two projects. general GRE: 800/600 One excellent recommendation from head of the department. Two good recommendations from statistics faculty. Goals that will improve profile I will be doing a summer internship this summer which will involve independent research I will take the math subject GRE to compensate for my low undergraduate gpa I will complete a master's of science in Statistics at top 10 school in statistics. This will require a thesis and the biggest boost in my application. I will replace one of my weaker recommenders because I only took one class with him. I got an A but our interaction was limited. Each statement of purpose was tailored towards each school's curriculum, faculty, and research strengths. I want to take most of this out and spend more time talking about my research interests. Schools I applied to: 8/13 rejections so far Cornell Princeton UC Davis Boston University Purdue Columbia University of North Carolina North Carolina State University University of Florida Florida State Ohio state Rutgers UIUC UCONN Schools I will be applying to next year: Chicago UIUC Iowa iowa state purdue northwestern minnesota wisconsin ucdavis unc ncsu princeton carnegie mellon Please comment on what I should be focusing on this coming year especially in the statement of purpose area. I would also like to know opinions on whether too many of these schools are out of reach. Surely princeton, carnegie, chicago are stretches but I think I got a good shot at Iowa? Any recommendations of schools in/near Iowa? My background is in financial statistics/mathematics.

Thanks everyone for the reply I asked the head of my masters program and he says thats how he does it Good luck everyone!

25 with a masters. Will be 26 when I begin.

Hello everyone, I am applying to PhD statistics schools across the country. I know from some friends and a few websites that some people have been accepted and some rejected from the same programs I am applying to, but I have not received anything. Does anyone know what this means and why? I am assuming I have been rejected but why haven't the schools informed me? I am sure my applications are complete with all forms submitted and application fee paid. thanks