StatsG0d

I was referring to strictly the master's programs, not the PhD. The USNWR rankings are really for PhD programs.

Yeah I kind of agree with this. I would say you couldn't go wrong either way. If you are absolutely sure you want to do genetics, then clearly Michigan is the way to go. If you have no idea what you want to do, maybe UNC has a slight edge. Since the program prestige is roughly identical, you might also consider other factors like climate, setting, etc.

It seems to me Duke's program is more theoretical, and given that you were an econ major (I was too), I definitely think that this will boost your profile for a PhD. I also wouldn't worry too much about recruitment. I imagine Duke, with its brand name, places people nationally and not just regionally. Even if they do place regionally, the Research Triangle has probably more technology companies per capita than any other region in the US save for maybe Silicon Valley. Going off newstyle, I won't deny Berkeley is in a better location, but I think the claim that it has a better reputation is objectively false (equal maybe). If you're interested in Bayesian stats, Duke is THE place to be. Even people on this forum with absolutely stellar profiles get rejected to Duke's PhD program because it's that competitive.

Put it up today. Please post your results to help future applicants!

Undergrad Institution: Top 100 USNWR Private Major(s): Economics Minor(s): Mathematics GPA: 3.81 Type of Student: DWM GRE General Test: Q: 164 (87%) V: 159 (73%) W: 5.0 (93%) GRE Subject Test in Mathematics: N/A TOEFL Score: N/A Grad Institution: Top 20 Stats. I took more than a few PhD classes here, which might have actually hurt me in the end (what's the point of applying to programs if you've already taken all the courses)? Concentration: Statistics GPA: 3.67 Programs Applying: Biostatistics (PhD) Research Experience: 1 year RA at undergrad with economics professor; 2 year RA at international organization in applied econometrics. Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Fellowship at grad institution Pertinent Activities or Jobs: TA for one year. Instructor for one semester Letters of Recommendation: 1 from very well-known economist for whom I was an RA; one from a wel-cited biostatistician whose class I took; one from current program’s professor who’s a “rising star”. Applying to Where: UNC - Accepted Michigan - Rejected Minnesota - Rejected Berkeley – Rejected Emory - Rejected UCLA – Waitlisted Pitt - ???

Well, I promised in the other forum that if no one else did this I would. Follow the template below, and post your profiles / results. These posts have been indispensable for future applicants and are extremely helpful for prospective students that have no idea where they should apply / have a shot. Also note that TGC limits the time in which you can edit your post, so you may wish to post your results in your signatures so you can change it (if you haven't already heard back from everywhere / almost everywhere). Undergrad Institution: (School or type of school (such as Big state/Lib Arts/Ivy/Technical/Foreign (Country?)) Major(s): Minor(s): GPA: Type of Student: (Domestic/International (Country?), Male/Female?, Minority?) GRE General Test: Q: xxx (xx%) V: xxx (xx%) W: x.x (xx%) GRE Subject Test in Mathematics: M: xxx (xx%) TOEFL Score: (xx = Rxx/Lxx/Sxx/Wxx) (if applicable) Grad Institution: (school or type of school?) (if applicable) Concentration: GPA: Programs Applying: (Statistics/Operation Research/Biostatistics/Financial Math/etc.) Research Experience: (At your school or elsewhere? What field? How much time? Any publications or conference talks etc...) Awards/Honors/Recognitions: (Within your school or outside?) Pertinent Activities or Jobs: (Such as tutor, TA, etc...) Letters of Recommendation: (what kinds of professors? "well-known" in field? etc.) Any Miscellaneous Points that Might Help: (Such as connections, grad classes, etc...) Applying to Where: (Color use here is welcome) School - Program / Admitted/Rejected/Waitlisted/Pending on (date) / Accepted/Declined School - Program / Admitted/Rejected/Waitlisted/Pending on (date) / Accepted/Declined School - Program / Admitted/Rejected/Waitlisted/Pending on (date) / Accepted/Declined

Two years ago I applied to their PhD and didn't hear back after a wave of acceptances and rejections. I emailed someone and he told me that I was on their wait list, and probably I would not hear back from them until AFTER April 15. So I went ahead and withdrew my application since I already had fellowship-funded offers.

FYI, Florida's program is in their College of Public Health. It's unranked because it's new.

It kind of sounds like you're waiting for someone to say something you want to hear. I would say if the thought of living in Chapel Hill scares you that much, then don't go to UNC. It doesn't make sense to go somewhere you will feel miserable, because you'll end up not being able to finish the degree. To me, five years in a less desirable place is simply an investment for living in a better place and having a better career in the future. Moreover, if you really are interested in academic positions, there are tons more schools in non-urban settings than otherwise, so it's likely you'd have to bite the bullet and go to a school in a more rural setting anyway. With all that being said, I'll answer your questions. I would advise you to email the grad coordinator at Columbia and ask them. They should have this information. But overall I think cyberwulf covered this. I kind of think this is bidirectional causality. Students who want to go to industry choose to go to Columbia (probably because of its brand name), AND the program does not prepare well for academia as a result of this, which causes more industry-focused students to apply, and so on. It's also likely because of the program rank. Advisors' reputations matter more than that of the program, but usually higher ranked programs have more advisors that place well into academia. This is probably somewhat program-dependent, but at my current program a lot of the PhD students get joint advised with stats and biostats. There does seem to be a bit of a statistics arrogance though--that stats people view themselves as superior to biostats people. So this may be more difficult at Columbia where their stats department is loaded with people like Gelman.

I would say unusual is a bit of an understatement. More like "extremely rare". These universities spend a lot of money funding you, so if you quit, it might signal to the new university that you aren't really sure what you're getting yourself into. Just something to think about.

I'm not sure about Columbia biostats but there's a lot of people talking how their Stats MS is basically a joke and they admit like 250+ students and get taught by adjunct faculty (I would guess their biostats is not too much different). No one is going to argue that Columbia has more "brand name" power than UNC, so if that's what matters to you then go to Columbia. If you want to work in public health, I imagine the "biggest" employers will come to the more highly ranked schools in terms of public health as opposed to overall ranking, so bear that in mind. I'm sure the cost for Columbia will also be astronomical compared to UNC.

Based on your research interests, i don't think a stats program would be a good fit. Maybe at some more "applied" programs it would work. If you're interested in social science applied statistics, it seems to me like a degree in economics (or with your current research background agricultural / resource economics) would be a better fit. You'll still need the math (analysis is always good), but you'll take classes in econometrics as well as economic theory (and a lot of social issues are explained by economic theory).

Usually they do an "Applicant Profile and Results" page so next cycle's applicants can gauge where they should apply. I'm sure someone will start that shortly (or I will haha)

Yeah it's difficult to say without similar data to compare it with but still 14% in their FIRST year? So no postdocs? That doesn't seem too bad. When I visited A&M stats they had basically 4 academic placements out of like the last 4 cohorts. Many PhD graduates will do postdocs to obtain academic jobs. What matters isn't the initial placement but rather where they end up.

He's definitely not UNC, because he says this in the same post: "And I don't know where you get the information that UW/Harvard/Hopkins have the strongest students, because as one who is involved with admissions at one of the schools in question, I'll just say that I have very strong reason to doubt that statement." Also even if he were from UNC why would he boast about a program he is not involved in? And the downside is there is no data (that I'm aware of) that consolidates academic placements. I was merely browsing the faculty page of several biostat web sites and observed that biostat_prof's conjecture seems accurate. Finally, even if the post is from 2013, that doesn't make it irrelevant. The top 3 programs back then are the same top 3 now. Moreover, most agree on this forum that your advisor's reputation--not that of your program--correlates with placement. Faculty movements aren't that common that this claim made by biostat_prof is irrelevant in my opinion. I'm not trying to diss the top 3 or say they don't deserve to be there. But the rankings are based on a faculty survey about how strong the research is coming out of those programs. It is not based on placement.

Here's a post from @biostat_prof in this thread (emphasis mine). This also comes from my own research, where I've looked at where faculty did their PhDs. A very good chunk of them come from Michigan, oftentimes more than places like UW, Harvard, and JHU: Repeat after me: "There is no 'top 3.' Your ability to find a good job in academia depends on your publications and your adviser's recommendations, not the name of the school you attended." Sorry that I keep saying that over and over again, but I don't know where this idea that UW/Harvard/Hopkins are somehow orders of magnitude better than any other biostat departments got started on this board, because it's simply false. As I have noted elsewhere, as near as I can tell Michigan is placing more students in the best jobs than any of these three schools right now.

They've placed a few at Assistant Professor positions at Purdue. If you look at my post history I think I shared their recent placements a couple years ago.

I'm not saying that those placements are necessarily "good" or at highly ranked institutions. I'm merely pointing out there appears to be an Ivy League hiring bias among Ivy League schools. And yeah, UW has great placements there's no doubt about it. But even they aren't really the "best" for academic placements. It's hard to argue anyone other than Michigan for that, and they are number 4 in biostats.

It's hard to say for certain. To the extent that some firms recruit exclusively or almost exclusively from Ivy League schools (for some firms, brand name > program rank) then there could be an advantage of UPenn. On the other hand, there's a lot of data science recruiting in Seattle (although it might be more regional--pertaining to jobs on the west coast). You probably couldn't make a bad decision either way if you want to go to industry. I suppose I would choose UW for data science just because I know that UW is committed to solving big data problems in their stats and CS departments.

The size of cohort thing may not factor in too much. While UNC is the largest program, Harvard isn't too far behind. But yeah, based on the visit at UNC they stress a lot about how their students have winning papers.

If you look at a lot of the Ivy League faculty in biostatistics (particularly Yale, Brown, etc.), many of them came from Ivy League PhD programs, despite that UW is a more "highly ranked" program. Just something to consider.

This one I think is relatively tougher than the UNC vs. Columbia post. I guess the big advantage of Berkeley is that (I think) you don't have to take written qualifying exams. They also (I believe) allow you to pretty much take whatever classes you want. Although I think in a way the second thing can be a disadvantage should you end up not having the same background as your peers or what other schools would call "core" classes. Berkeley also is very tiny. And in my opinion, it is kind of hard to see who belongs to biostats and who belongs to stats (it seems every prof advises almost exclusively stats students). Also only having 2 other people in the cohort would personally make me feel pretty isolated. And while Berkeley has a sizable stats program, in my experience there is a big disconnect between stats / biostats people (I am not sure why). I would also be concerned about the research diversity of the department. I think Columbia is slightly larger than Berkeley. On their web site, it seems they have some research diversity (at least more than Berkeley). It also is easier to distinguish the program between the stats program since it is housed in the School of Public Health (side note: Berkeley people say their biostats program is also in their public health school--and you gotta apply to SOPHAS. However, their web site more indicates it's a group within statistics). I know Berkeley is very strong in causal inference--if you're interested in that for sure, then there's an obvious choice. I think Columbia diversifies their research specialties, so if you're not committed to causal inference, Columbia might be a better choice.

Yeah I hear you for sure. I'm also from a large city up north. I can definitely understand the want / need to be in an urban setting. But at the same time, I also feel like much of the you would be too busy (or too poor lol) to ever take advantage of things like Broadway shows, concerts, etc. I think your immediate community (those commiserating with you in your program) outweighs that of your surrounding environment. That's just my opinion though. I trust you'll make the best decision for you.

I think the Research Triangle is a liberal Mecca in middle of an otherwise conservative state. Not sure if you were attending the admit day at UNC (I was there), but I would say the area looks reasonably sized. Plus there are three large universities all within 30 minutes. In addition, Raleigh has 450k people on its own, plus around 250k in Durham and 60k in Chapel Hill make the area pretty big. It's also way more affordable, more highly ranked, and larger (in terms of faculty and research diversity) than Columbia. I would think this decision should be an easy one.

Haha you caught me at a good time. That's understandable. I was pretty against biostatistics at first, thinking only statistics was my interest. But I flipped. The things you study are essentially identical, but (obviously) the applications are different (more bio-focused in biostatistics). It's pretty late in the cycle to be applying right now. I'm sure most reputable programs would have closed their apps by now (I'm a little surprised U of I has not). Good luck though!