StatsG0d

I agree with Bayes about getting that Analysis grade. However, I do think with the grade you'd have a decent shot at Michigan (UNC statistics would be hard because they are focused on probability, but biostats you could likely get in), but I agree with them that the rest will almost certainly be rejections. In my opinion, I would say statistics programs outside the top-10 are attainable, and almost all biostatistics programs are attainable save for maybe Washington. I would be surprised if you didn't get into any biostatistics programs ranked 4 and below.

Yeah rankings definitely do not correlate perfectly with how competitive admissions are. A lot of the Ivies have not great programs rankings-wise, but are oftentimes more difficult to get into than some top programs that are public schools. I don't think Bayes was trying to take a shot at you or anything. The A- certainly does help a little bit. Still, if you're absolutely set on getting into a "top" PhD program, I recommend you apply for a master's degree. If money is an issue, there are lots of programs that fund master's students. Search around on this forum and you'll see people mentioning some programs. Otherwise, just apply to some lower-ranked programs that are more attainable for your profile.

That seems like a reasonable list. I'd add maybe 2-3 more schools in the 25-35 range since I think Purdue, NCSU, PSU, and Hopkins will all be competitive (especially Hopkins).

Many applicants are not fresh out of undergrad. I don't think your age will hurt you. Also, you don't need the math GRE.

The users of this forum are more concentrated in statistics / biostatistics. I would post your profile on a site like www.mathematicsgre.com

1.) Your grades in multivariate calculus, linear algebra, probability theory, and real analysis might make it difficult to crack some of those PhD programs, but I think you have a fair shot at getting into at least one of them. I don't think you'll have a problem getting into either of those master's programs. 2.) I think your list for statistics is fair, but I'd maybe add one or two "safeties" (probably around 40-50 in the UNSWR rankings). If you have the funds, it'd be best to apply to around 10 programs in my opinion. I know money is always an issue, but the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost in most cases. 3.) Don't waste your time retaking the GRE. Your score is more than sufficient, and not going to make or break your application.

I don't really think you have a shot at Carnegie Mellon. Purdue, PSU, A&M, Iowa State, NCSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all seem like reaches for your profile. Your GPA is pretty low relative to the applicants that are successful getting into these programs, but what will kill your application is the B+ in linear algebra and the B in real analysis, and to a lesser extent the B in probability and statistics. Unfortunately, you're trending downwards in terms of math grades, and I think admissions committees would rather see the opposite. I think your grades in these courses question your ability to prove things rigorously. I think you have a shot at the schools ranked 30-50. I think top-15 and maybe even top-20 will be extremely difficult. You might get lucky somewhere 15-30. Maybe you want to consider doing a master's degree somewhere and then apply for a PhD?

Although the OP is an international student, she did go to a top-10 school in the US, so I think she definitely has somewhat of an edge over most international students who earned their degrees (including their master's degree) abroad. I think generally the concern among international students is that adcoms don't really know how strong of a school it is unless it has a solid reputation for farming good statistics students (e.g. ISI in India and Peking in China).

Honestly, I don't think that any applied research experience will matter much in graduate admissions. What the adcoms really look for first and foremost is mathematical training. It won't matter much if you can do applied research if you can't do well in courses like a Casella Berger mathstats course. I will echo the advice of others and say it would be best for you to find a MS program you think you can get into. Do well in the MS, and a PhD admission will be much more attainable. It is good that you're taking another linear algebra course. That, along with your GRE scores, are the weakest portion of your profile.

Your profile is very strong, it's just difficult for international students to get into Biostats programs largely because a lot of the funding comes from the US government, which is prohibited from funding international students. For stats programs, I think there's a significantly stronger chance for international applicants. I'd still say it's worth applying to some of the top biostats programs.

Agreed with @Bayesian1701. The rankings aren't perfectly correlated with acceptance rates (particularly for Ivies as they mentioned). For the state schools, particularly those in less desirable locations (i.e., suburban or rural settings), I think it's at least a good proxy.

I think your chances will be largely determined by the prestige of your undergrad and grad institutions. Your GPAs at both your bachelors and masters institutions are very low relative to other applicants. I think you might have to apply in the 30-50 range to have any realistic shot at getting in.

I think most people will agree there's no such thing as a "sure thing" when it comes to admissions. For biostats master's programs, I think you'd be competitive almost anywhere, as much of the applicant pool have taken the bare minimum when it comes to math, and you have a strong background (albeit some sub-par grades in those courses). I'd say you can attain some schools in the 1-10 range for master's programs. Maybe use half of your funds to apply to schools in 1-10 and other half 10-20.

With that kind of score on the subject GRE, schools like Washington and Stanford are reachable. But I'll go ahead and echo everyone else and apply around. The only thing I could see hurting you is your analysis grade.

I think it depends heavily on the program. At my master's institution, there was a comprehensive exam covering the first year material. There were three levels of pass/fail: PhD pass, master's pass, and fail. You were required to get a PhD pass in order to continue onto the PhD classes. At my PhD institution, there is only a master's exam for those wishing to get a master's degree. PhD students are not required to take the exam, and there are only two levels of pass (pass or fail).

The GRE subject test isn't really all that important for biostatistics. It might help at places like Washington. If you take and do well in real analysis (preferably I and II if possible) and do well on the GRE general test math portion I think you have a very good chance at a top-3 biostats department, and would be extremely surprised if you didn't get into at least 1 top-5 program. It's probably worth noting that undergraduate statistics classes hold very low weight in graduate statistics applications. Math courses and to a much lesser extent computational courses will be what makes or breaks your application. So if it comes down to taking more stats or more math, opt for the latter.

I agree with @bayessays, but I would add it might be worthwhile to look at some sequences stuff in real analysis, too. Make sure you understand that material thoroughly before you jump to the measure theory stuff.

I'll go ahead and echo the others and say I think Waterloo (or even UBC) is the best option for you. As far as I know, both schools in Canada are highly regarded in the academic world. With the current political climate in the US, you are honestly probably better of being in an international program anyway if your plans are to try to permanently stay in the country in which you are learning. As I understand, visas are becoming harder to come by.

I agree with @Applied Math to Stat. It's worthwhile to target 2-3 schools in the top-10. Maybe 1 in the top-5 and 2 in 5-10. As far as program recommendations, do you have any research interests or is it open? If you don't really know what you want to do, maybe it's worthwhile to target some of the larger programs like NCSU.

I and most of my colleagues use Microsoft Surfaces. I have the Surface Book (predates the new Surface Laptop) and they all have Surface Pros. We're all very happy with them.

I can't really comment that well on Seattle but I can say definitively that although Chicago is much colder, Chapel Hill (and even the greater Research Triangle area) cannot really compare in terms of things to do / places to see to Chicago (and I seriously doubt Seattle can compare)--so I wouldn't discount Chicago just for the climate. It's also an extremely affordable for being the 3rd largest city in the US (much more affordable than Seattle and probably a little more expensive than Raleigh). As far as funding goes, I would say there is a solid chance to get funding within the first year at UNC and a very high chance to get funding for your second and further years. As @gc2012said, emails go out all the time.

I doubt that you'd be constrained to Texas. UNC probably does offer some advantages in terms of opportunities to connect with prospective employers, but these days employers are looking for people with data analysis abilities and whether that comes from UNC or UT I don't think is a huge difference.

Let's suppose you went to a PhD offering institution and took half their courses. I think it raises some eyebrows. Why is this person leaving when they're only one or two courses away from finishing a PhD at the program they're at? I think professors don't want students coming in with any "ideas"--they want to shape their students. I know of at least two people who were great students and took PhD classes, only to get lots of rejects when it came to application time. If you're going to take PhD-level classes, you should consider taking classes that are not part of the PhD curriculum at other institutions. That would be my advice.

While it is important not to overstate the value of rankings, we should not understate them either. I think it's well established that advisor's reputation matters more than program reputation, but as you point out, the higher tier programs have more professors that have a good reputation. Coming from one such program, in my experience there is almost no competition for any specific mentor. I would hypothesize that it is the opposite way--if you are coming from a small department, perhaps only 1 or 2 professors are considered "elite". At my department, I would be extremely surprised if you did not get to work with at least your second choice professor. If you somehow have a guarantee to work with an "elite" professor from a mid-tier institution, I agree there might not be a significant difference than working with an "elite" professor from an elite institution. But an average quality professor from a mid-tier institution will likely be lower than the average quality professor from a higher tier institution. So the minimax rule would be to choose the higher ranked institution. EDIT: I should add to paragraph 1 that the assumption here is that the department has a diverse array of research interests. If most people are working on mostly one thing (e.g., genomics), then competition is probably very high to work with the most well known genomics professors in the department.

This is 100% true. Taking PhD-level courses can sometimes hurt an application.