StatsG0d

I don't necessarily think NCSU is a reach. You come from there, so they are familiar with your courses, etc. I would think that you would not want to go to UNC unless you are interested in probability, as that is what they're known for (based on the fact that you weren't a math major, I'll say it's a safe assumption that you don't want to attend there). In my experience, the California schools are pretty competitive, mainly because of the location. I'm not familiar with FSU's program but UF's is highly international (admitting on average 2-5 American students per year, compared to 8-10 international students). This makes UF not so much a safety school (in addition, it's highly theoretical and Bayesian MCMC oriented. If you're into more applied work, you should research the other departments). I'd say it's a good idea to apply to the very large departments (A&M, NCSU, Purdue, etc.). It might also be a good idea to take some kind of advanced linear algebra class to show that you can do that sort of stuff.

I heard that UNC has extended their deadline for biostatistics (if you would be interested in that).

This actually is not true. UPenn's program is in the rankings, and is housed in their medical school. I think a lot of it has to do with the size of the program as well. Admittedly, Berkeley has a very small PhD program (only a few students coming in each year), but I think the non-ranked programs are mostly because of the size. I agree with this a lot. There are some schools who are low on the rankings, but who have very good professors (Daniels from Texas comes to mind), but I don't really know of any unranked programs that have good faculty members.

I think the other programs on your list would be more attractive to employers. Hold off and see what happens.

I suppose if they say that then you shouldn't but they might be referring strictly to official transcripts as opposed to unofficial. Maybe they don't want to process the paperwork after a certain date?

We are indeed referring to the PhD programs. It's certainly not abnormal to not have heard from Master's programs. Most schools will take care of PhD admissions first and then move on to Master's.

I wonder if that Forbes article stating that Biostatistics was the number 1 graduate degree has caused a massive number of applicants. It seems like decisions are taking much longer to come out this year than in prior years. For example... Minnesota: Thus far, there has been 1 (or maybe 2--not sure if the recent one is biostat or epi) acceptance, as compared to 6 by this time last year.

I emailed my unofficial transcript to all the schools I applied to and most said they would take it into account.

Yeah this forum is really more stats focused. You're probably looking for a place like http://www.mathematicsgre.com/

Unless you did well in some particularly challenging courses. Then I think it's worth sending your updated transcript.

Yeah I guess that's a good analogy lol. I have just heard from friends how they waited a bit (from schools they were at least considering) and some got some small fellowships.

With all due respect, I don't think there's anything wrong with people holding onto offers anywhere they're seriously considering. Funding can be an important issue so even if someone got into say Stanford doesn't mean he/she would be able to afford it. Moreover (and this might be unfortunate to waitlisted candidates) candidates who don't accept/reject an offer may receive additional rewards as time goes on.

Does anyone know anything about funding at UNC for biostats? I know that they said it will be decided later, but I kind of thought that was a little odd. I also saw that 96% of doctoral students receive some financial support (emphasis mine). I would think that such a prestigious program would be able to provide all their PhD students financial support. Anyone have any idea of the likelihood of funding and possibly the amount?

I was referring to PhD only. But I also believe that if your PhD is a possible goal of yours, you should pursue it right away.

I think Stanford is a definite rejection given your math background, unless you can get an absolutely spectacular score on the math GRE (which I believe is required for them). As for the other schools, I still think it would be extremely difficult to crack them even if you have analysis and score a very good grade. People tend to get to caught up in the rankings. I understand the want to go to a highly ranked program but overall I think it's overrated. You probably have a good shot at getting into some stats programs ranked 10-25 and some biostats programs ranked outside the top 10 as well, why be so focused on those few "elite" programs?

Let's hope so. Because I applied to biostats and I've neither received an interview invite nor been rejected haha.

@marmle I could be mistaken, but I think that the PhD in Biostatistics and the PhD in Biostatistics and Epidemiology at Emory are two different programs. Everything that has come in on the results page is for the latter program.

I think your list of schools is very, very top heavy. I don't necessarily think it will be impossible to get into one of those schools, but it will be pretty difficult. You will certainly need to get an A in real analysis and hopefully your math background is filled with A's. The competition pool for those schools is very competitive, with students having much more math breadth (e.g., not only real analysis but also complex analysis, real analysis II, etc.) I also think if you want to get into these schools, you'll need to get that GRE score up to at least a 165+ and preferably 167+. Good luck to you, but I highly recommend you add some more realistic schools to your list. Biostats has great job prospects, so I don't think you need to be set on only top-10 schools.

I think for master's programs you will be fine. A lot of applicants have little or no biology background whatsoever. I think your math grades, especially multivariate calculus and linear algebra, will matter much more than your bio grades. So provided that the rest of your background like GRE scores, math GPA, etc. are good, I would say it's not a huge detriment.

I just want to clarify that I do not think you're not a competitive candidate for PhD programs. But master's admissions are much, much easier to get into than PhD programs. So while I think that particular list of schools is fine for master's, I think it's too top-heavy for PhD programs. If you're interested in the PhD, then apply for the PhD, but target schools you have at least a decent shot of getting into. From your list of schools, I'd say that's UC Davis, Minnesota, NC State, and maybe UCLA.

I think a master's from a reputable university could certainly help but I think the GRE score is much more important. I think the other parts of your GRE are fine. Much higher than that of some of my classmates even. Also, it depends on your definition of "really good". If you're talking about Stanford, Harvard, or Washington, you'll need to boost your profile tremendously. If you're talking about schools like Penn State, Florida, NC State (talking about stats here, not biostats), improving your GRE score should make you competitive at these schools.

I think the lack of discussion / information speaks for itself. It can't compare with the ranked biostats programs surely. Also, while PSU has a great stats department, it's housed back on the main campus in State College, nearly 2 hours away from Hershey. I doubt there's very strong ties between the two departments. I would advise you apply elsewhere. Why are you stuck on Penn State?

I think we need some more information about your educational background in order to make a legitimate recommendation. What MATH courses did you take? Statistics courses are useful, but math courses (particularly Calc III, linear algebra, and real analysis) have much more weight than stats courses. Moreover, most applicants (international and domestic) will have taken many more math courses beyond those three. Secondly, the prestige of your institutions also matter. Did you go to ISI or IIT? If so, then I think you can maybe manage to squeeze into a few of the middle tier programs (go to US news for rankings). However, your GRE is alarmingly low for PhD programs, particularly for an international student with a master's degree. Secondly, almost all of the deadlines have passed for biostatistics (the deadline usually is 12/1), and it's fast approaching for statistics (some programs have already passed, some have 12/31 or 1/1 deadlines). My advice: wait until next year. I understand that's easier said than done, but if you're serious about wanting to do a PhD and possibly be funded, take a year to get that GRE quant score up to a 164+ (and preferably a 167+ as an international student). Assuming you've done that, I think your profile gets boosted tremendously. International students coming from unknown institutions (since you're from the subcontinent, I would classify that as not IIT and not ISI) are under very high scrutiny, so you'll want to do everything you can to show the adcoms you're a good candidate. Good luck.

For the record, I never meant to say that I believe the Ivies departments are "better." But I do believe they are much more difficult to get into. In addition to the reasons listed above, the endowments at these schools are so huge that they don't need to rely on Federal grant funding, so that enables them to basically take the best and brightest from the applicant pool. State school programs usually do have to rely on federal funding, giving domestic students an edge. I'm not trying to say that your profile isn't strong or that I don't think you can get into a good program. I'm only saying the Ivies are very, very difficult to break into. For example, I got outright rejected from Columbia and Yale despite being admitted to programs better than both of those (and receiving fellowship offers from 3 top state school programs).

Don't get me wrong there's probably loads of bias in the rankings. But they're still good as a baseline to compare the tier of different schools. I wouldn't necessarily say "more qualified" but I would argue they are better prepared. Many of these students will have already seen a lot of the material you will learn in your first year and maybe your second. Students that come from these schools have a good track record of being successful in the programs.