Jump to content

Karoku_valentine

Members
  • Posts

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Karoku_valentine

  1. Thank you. I think I'll try to take some courses online on Clinical Trials and Epidemiology at the U Penn State Global Campus.
  2. Thank you for your answer. The school in which I was doing my MS in Stats, but all my classes were at the PhD level, was in the 20-30 rankings. I just feel that the B- is haunting me. I just feel it would be "out of character" to have worked in the financial sector for around 8 years by the time I apply and say I am interested in Biostatistics (though, the classes I took that were shared with biostats were actually really good and interesting: GLM, Survival, Missing Data) when nothing in my profile screams biostats. I'll have to check if I can do something to make my profile look a little more bio. I had seen the SDSU program and contacted one of their professors. He shared the syllabus for some classes, but did not share the qualifiers (some schools straight publish theirs online, I don't see why not) I think their qualifier still involved some Measure Theory, but I gotta pay more attention to that. Please anyone else, let me know if you hear of any interesting applied programs. Thank you.
  3. Yes, I have the following reasons: 1) Industry standards. I have noticed that there are several research positions in the financial sector that demand a PhD and to have knowledge of stats/optimization in credit scoring, fraud detection, insurance. Some positions explicitly request a PhD. They require to use techniques in journals or devise completely new methodologies, make sure algorithms converge, apply missing data techniques, optimization, Bayesian, and sampling techniques too. For example, my informal supervisor (my formal supervisor is a managing director) read papers from different journals and implemented a methodology to calculate losses that was validated by the federal reserve. It was not a ground-breaking methodology, but he had to read a lot of papers to have a better idea of what to do, and apply what they had in our context. 2) Personal reasons. When my informal supervisor has given me papers, I notice gaps in my understanding of certain proofs, concepts and I confirmed there are so many things I could learn or study. Even if I keep studying and reading, I think I can learn a lot more in a real program since I would have feedback from professors and peers, be exposed to a more creative environment and specialize in a field. 3) Promotions. Some higher level positions do require a PhD, like the head of modeling, for example, where 4 out of 5 heads had a PhD in a Quant methodology. Or I can change fields, thrive and still have a similar salary. More positions will be opened that will require newer solutions and I want to have the skills. The PhD would give me access to positions that may not be in my reach right now.
  4. Hi, My situation is the following: A) I finished my MS in Statistics in a theoretical program, where my classmates were PhD students in Stats. I passed my first qualifier with the PhD level, but I could not switch to the PhD on the second year because I did poorly in Probability (Measure Theory) B- (some people failed the course) and my Advanced Stat Theory. The program was really difficult to me, but I was able to get grades from B to A in the rest of the classes. Afterwards, I got a nice job and promotions in an international Financial company doing credit scoring and loss forecasting using SAS, R, Python and Matlab. B ) I plan to get my company sponsorship in 3.5 years (they start the sponsorship in the year 4 after getting the H1B visa) to obtain the permanent residency/green card. So after that, I would like to return to a PhD, but I am uncertain whether I should pursue a PhD in Stats or in something more applied. Pros for regular stats programs: 1. I already know the common materials for the first year and other second year classes (Casella Berger, Linear Algebra, Applied Bayesian, Applied Stats, GLM, Survival) and I have kept studying them since I use a lot of them in my current work. I think I can pass the Q1 of different schools since I had studied exams from several schools for my own Q1 (it didn't include measure theory, which was in the second year), and now I am much better at proofs and stats, but I feel very uncertain about being able to pull it off in a program that has Measure Theory in the first qualifier. 2. Since I have taken several stats classes, I have a better understanding of the program, so I can read more papers, take more classes, etc. 3. I would be competitive in a program with ties to finance, operational risk, extreme value distributions, Monte Carlo simulations, etc. since I have work experience on that. Though, I think working experience may be kind of irrelevant for a PhD admission. 4. I plan to impress a colleague (not my boss, but a project manager who assigns me work cause my boss is too busy to assign me tasks), who's a PhD in Applied Math, so I could get a recommendation letter from him. Note: I am not interested in academia and I understand my situation, so I would be thrilled to be in a 50+ program. Cons regular stats programs: 1. Several programs include Probability-MT in their qualifiers, even the lower rank programs. 2. I have poor grades in the Probability Class and the Advanced Theory class. Therefore, several programs would automatically disqualify me. 3. My Analysis classes were not as rigorous (we did not use Rudin). I have been thinking of more applied programs. Are there any statistics PhD programs that are more applied ranked 50+? Any suggestions? I don't think I could do biostats because I have no bio experience (or interest) to justify that. I have also considered PhD's in Operations Research, where I think my working experience may make me more competitive and the most theoretical courses may have a lower impact. Though for OR I may need to take additional classes (linear programming, optimization, stochastic processes) before the program. There's plenty of time (around 4 years to start applications), but I want to start preparing. My previous GRE was 168 in Math, so I would have to retake it in a few years. Thanks!
  5. I think others will give you a better advice. But in my personal opinion, your profile seems strong. The research experience is very very important. In my university, people with some good research experience in biostatistics were able to get fellowships. They also had master degrees in statistics/Applied Mathematics, and also took a lot of graduate math courses (analysis, measure theory and probability, etc. but I guess it becomes less relevant if you are going to biostatistics). One advice a professor told me was to see my research interests and apply to schools with active faculty working on those, and that would give you an advantage over candidates who just finished their undergraduate studies (since you already have a master, you probably have a better idea about the topics in which you want to do some research). The low verbal score in the GRE may be a red flag though.However many programs are used to admitting students with weaker communication skills in English, maybe you could address that in your letter of intent.
  6. This is the opinion of the people who have some knowledge of graduate programs in statistics. Even if Real Analysis is not "required", the school pre requisites are what they expect as a minimum. The strongest applicants will have graduate level real analysis and linear algebra plus some research (even if it is not super specialized), excellent grades and recommendation letters, and GRE higher scores. No one is saying you can't do or you won't be admitted. However, the admission committees will have this concern. certainly departments in Penn, Iowa St and Michigan will have it too. This concern is very valid considering, for example, how heavy in probability theory is the qualifier at Iowa State, or how hard classes can get. In my experience, if I consider into account all the people who are in the PhD of Stat and Biostatistics AND people who were admitted into the master program, only one person had not taken Real Analysis, but this student was admitted to Biostatistics and already had a MS in Biostatistics. In addition, at least one third of the entering class had already master degrees in biostatistics and statistics, I am also certain they all got A's in all or most of their undergraduate Analysis classes. In other words, you will be competing against people with: 1) Master degrees in statistics and some in mathematics, or just people in the honors program of undergraduate mathematics, 2) people with excellent or good grades in more advanced classes and excellent GRE scores, 3) people with excellent recommendation letters. Even the "weak applicants" are still excellent in most of the schools you mention above.
  7. In my Personal opinion, your profile lacks some of the basic mathematical training the committees are expecting. There are no higher level Math courses like Analysis or linear algebra (if these were graduate level that would be even better). Even if you took all of those econometric courses, the committees need to know you have enough mathematical training to be able to understand and produce your own proofs because the applied part will come easily later. Good things are that you have internship experiences and that you have some interest in applied statistics, and I think even being an American may give you a slight advantage in admissions. You need to prepare very well for the gre to get a score that above 165, but I don't know if this would compensate the lack of math. i would consider doing a master in one of those schools, get math and measure theory necessary for the PhD and apply for PhDs.
  8. In my opinion, you seem to have a good technical knowledge about mathematics. Though your GPA for your mathematics coursework seems a little low for some standards, and I think most committees look at the grades for linear algebra and real analysis classes. If you did well in those classes in grad school, you should have no problems getting admissions in mid-tier schools.
  9. Ah, well. I have been in two different American schools, and, unlike my home country, people with money seem to be very down to earth. Maybe I haven't met super rich people. Also, I have never heard most people are receiving money from their parents. I think some people may receive money from their parents. In my department everyone is funded, soooo
  10. I second this. Additionally, it's not that the requirements for IR are that high. You can buckle down and get things done. It may be harder because some people may not have taken many Math classes in high school (and none in college), and then when they need to take any number-related classes they get nervous and stressed. I met people with History degrees that ere able to fare well in their Econ classes. So don't give up. Also, consider what kind of technical skills you will get without having skills on data analysis, policy evaluation, economics, etc. Pretty much all the other graduates could do what you do, but you could not do everything the others can.
  11. That is a very low GPA. However, as they said, you can make it up with good working experience. Given that you have 11 years of working experience, I have the impression you will have a good chance at being admitted at MAS programs and that you will pay for them (I say this because most people I know are being funded, even in the MAS, but they have better GPAs). You should have excellent recommendation letters and GRE's, you should also study more English. I also have to say that the theoretical requirements for the MAS are lower than those for the PhD/MS, so it may not be very easy to make the switch. Good luck.
  12. I would suggest you taking a probability class as soon as possible. I think you would be admitted, as you studied physics and mentioned your Math is good. However, a course in real analysis would be better, even if you only do a MAS. My friends in the MAS were suffering with their theory classes. You should look for MAS in different schools, OHio State is an option, Iowa State, Columbia (cash cow though), and some universities in Texas also have good programs, NCSU.
  13. Well, my advice is the following: 1. What is the most profitable option? Some Americans are indebted, so for them, getting more education means getting more debt and they need to start working to pay their loans. In my case, I am not American so my education abroad was free and my degrees (1 master and I am working on a Master-PhD) did not cost me anything, so I am in no debt. I always wanted to work in statistics positions, but my degree was not in statistics. So switching from international relations (my original major in college, though I did have training that made my degree employable) and moving to statistics makes sense financially: I can apply for different jobs and for more jobs and now I have much more technical skills that most people do not have. 2. How do you know you prefer psychology over education? I don't recall reading you have worked. Many people change their minds after working and realize what they are good for some things and that they want to specialize in other things. I would say to get a job, pay some loans and see what you are good for. 3. Following your passion. You can only follow your passion when you know what is that. In reality, people have adaptive preferences: if they are good at something, then will start liking it more, and if they are bad at something they like, they may start disliking it more. You don't have to the best, but you have to assess how good you need to be in order to achieve what you want. For example, many people here want to become professors; yet in order to become a professor you need to have a very specific skillset and work hard and the financial reward is not even that great; so some people who are "worse" than them can actually achieve a lot more success in terms of income. In sum, what do you want, why do you want it, and how does that fit into your life plans and abilities?
  14. You just need to report your overall GPA with your transcript from imperial college. In your transcript it will appear that you took 4 classes and got 2:1 or whatever that number is.
  15. Yes. I read your other posts. I have a lot of friends in master programs, but not a lot in PhD's. Specifically, I have just one friend who did her major in Poli-Sci and IR; she worked at PWC doing some lobbying for 3 years (it sounds good, but in reality is just a regular job, nothing out of ordinary) and published a paper in an unknown but peer-reviewed journal (in Spanish). Overall, her profile seems good. However, I have no idea about her writing sample. She is attending OSU and is interested in subnational/province democracy. If I had more friends in PhD programs, I would tell you. Maybe you can search on Linkedin or in google the students at the universities you want to attend and see how your profile compares to theirs.
  16. I don't think the grade calculation matters. If you have 9.5 out of 10, just change it to the grading scale of 3'sh, which is 9.5*4/10=3.8, or just leave it as 9.5. I have no idea why Americans have such a weird scale when they could just do 1-100 or 1-10. Anyway, all of my friends were admitted in American universities and their transcripts were like mine: 1-10. Paragraph 3. They will ask you for writing samples or to write a paper in the application. So, you can show how good you are. This is what is important: "My CV includes two internships at the national parliament, a 9 months voluntary year of social service at a research institute for sustainability studies where I to a degree assisted in their research, extracurricular activities (member of the youth group of the council of foreign relations of my country and organiser of a project to support disadvantaged students before and during their undergraduate studies), practically two scholarship (one for my exchange year and the other for academic achievement [1/2000, long-term funding]), and a very high workload in all terms (finished all required courses after two instead of three years). I also speak 4 1/2 languages (German, English, French, Italian, Mandarin[1/2]), " I didn't carefully read your whole text, but I am not sure if you are mentioning PhD or Master. If it is a Master, you will probably be admitted in any of those programs. I have met people at SIPA in Columbia and at UCSD with bad CVs and they were still admitted. Even friends with Ok CV's were admitted to Harvard. If it is the PhD, then it will become much more complicated, and you will have to show you have very good analytical skills in the writing samples. Luck!
  17. I think it has to do with the belief hold by many people that students in social sciences tend to be bad at Math. While it is true at some level with some disciplines, some people (STEM and not STEM) assume that this mathematical barrier filters most students, and so, the "lazy" ones study majors like communications or other "easy" majors. With Poli-sci, I have the impression it is not seen as a major for lazy people, but it is not seen as a very useful major to get a job. Though it clearly changes from school to school, the core of Political Science is mostly about philosophy, political theory and analysis; if you took classes in data analysis, economics, policy and others, then Poli-Sci becomes a much more employable major. But the core of poli-sci seems to be much more theoretical, and the rest are just ramifications. You may agree or not with this last statement, but I think it reflects the view of many people.
  18. I would say any class in a real economics department would be better than most classes in GPS in terms of the rigor and technical skills. Also, Yale has better branding than UCSD outside of the USA. Since you are Indian, that's a big deal.
  19. In my opinion, it may not matter as much if your classes in the master are of a higher level. For example: real analysis at the graduate level instead of undergrad real analysis. As long as they are more advanced classes and you did better, I think you should be ok. In my case, I took undergrad classes during my master and when applied for the PhD, they did not care about my undergrad education.
  20. Hi. As a fellow international student, I have something to say. In general, I have not had any problems while speaking in English. I also teach recitations and do tutoring on a daily basis. I am more fluent than I was when I first came to the USA. However, your accent will not fade: my accent was the same as when I arrived, the only thing I did was to take a couple of classes on pronunciation (v vs b, z vs c, th, etc.) and that's it. Most people used to say my English was good, and now, because of those small changes, people say my English is very good. Yet my accent stayed the same. I noticed my friends from China and how they improved their English (or maybe I got used to their accent). However, their accent stayed almost the same, they just became more confident and now try harder. I would suggest you to look for cheap classes on www.italki.com , you can contact native speakers and pay around 10-20 USD per hour of class. They could help you if you tell them you want to improve your accent. Regarding people with immigrants parents and their English, it is true that some people have different accents (look at Miami and some videos about speech and accents on youtube).
  21. In general, professors in the USA do know about international universities. For example, professors in economics at UCSD knew well my university and it didn't appear on the rankings (mostly because it was a research center and was a very small college). I am sure they do have an idea of what's going on with universities in Germany and Switzerland. If you are interested in living in Germany later in your life, you should go to a German university and make some contacts there.
  22. Hi everyone, I graduated from IRPS in June of 2014. I have some comments regarding what I have read in this forum so far: 1. The quant requirements. In general, I would say they are easy (except maybe for QM1) if you have taken classes on regression or econometrics. You could even waive them (I wish I would have done that). However, if you are, for example, an English major who has never ever taken any Calculus/Economics class in your undergrad, IRPS might be daunting. Pretty much everyone passes and there were three people who were "conditioned" 2 foreigners and one American, but they did fine in the second semester. 2. Career services. They are pretty good and could help you. However, you have to understand that they do not get you a job, you are the one doing that. Therefore do not expect to do nothing and get job interviews. They have big networks and always inform you about jobs, but it is your main responsibility to get an internship and a job. 3. I have friends who studied at SIPA. In terms of the quality of students and teaching, it seems that both schools are pretty similar, as my friends (exclassmates from college) made the same comments about their fellow classmates and the effort they put into classes. However, I would say that SIPA has better connections and you could get better jobs if you study there, but it is my perception. Also, one American female classmate was disappointed about people not having a job right after finishing classes; I thought she was exaggerating but said schools in DC/New York were better at placing their students. I got a job in Risk Management in a Financial Group in my country like 2-3 months after finishing, it was a change in my career and I do think my education in IRPS was the reason I got it, plus my college is pretty good at the national level. 4. RA/TA. I have seen that some students got involved into some projects, but I would say it is definitely less than one third. For example, the IRPS (now GPS) students become TA's for the classes for the first year (Managerial Econ 2 TA's, Finance 2 TAs, QM1 2 TAs from IRPS, QM2 2 TAs from IRPS, QM3 1 TA from IRPS. Other classes might have one TA or none, as many classes are not that big. However, consider that in order to be a TA you need to have at least A in the class and be familiar with the professor. 5. General classes. I found that most "policy" classes are irrelevant to those working in the private sector, as you do not use them at all (a girl from another class told me the same). Still, I had to take them and realized I could have taken other classes. I do not regret my education there, as I got things from it and now I can have more education on something else. Still you can make the best of your stay; it entirely depends on you.
  23. They are different. I took a Linear Algebra course and an Applied Linear Algebra. The applied one was upper division and it was way more difficult (still easy) and we saw a lot of computations. Real analysis was definitely an interesting class, very different to regular Math classes, as we were expected to "prove" that mathematical formulas were right. Unlike Linear Algebra, there was not computations, but memorization and understanding of theorems and creativity on how to solve problems. I got A at Linear Algebra, B+ at Applied LA, B+ at Real Analysis I and A at Real Analysis II. I would totally consider Linear Algebra to be way easier than Real Analysis.
  24. At least that was the case a year ago. I have no idea if that is still a problem, but I found this: https://www.simplemobile.com/wps/wcm/connect/SimpleMobile+EN/Support/FAQs/Features/International+Calls Does my SIMPLE Mobile Plan support International Roaming? SIMPLE Mobile plans do not support International Roaming (using your phone outside the USA) at this time. You should check T-mobile, they do have plans working abroad. http://www.t-mobile.com/optional-services/roaming.html And it is cheaper than AT&T.
×
×
  • 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