StatsG0d

I got into Columbia's MS with a 157V and 164Q. So yeah, you're probably in great shape.

I think that Chicago is arguably the better choice for PhD prep. I could be wrong, but I think that the perception is that statistics programs are slightly more quantitatively rigorous at the masters level--so it could be easier to go from a statistics MS to a biostatistics PhD than a biostatistics MS to a biostatistics PhD. I also think that the thesis factor is important to consider, since it will give you research exposure. Boston and Chicago have similar climates, except Chicago's cold wind off the Lake make its winters very harsh. In the end, neither cities offer favorable winter climate. I'm biased towards Chicago (as a city, not as a school) since I grew up around there and went to undergrad in the city.

So UConn finally got back to me and I was accepted. Kind of weird that they would wait a day after decision day. Maybe they have funding issues?

Congrats. Rogers Park is a really cool neighborhood. I went to Loyola for undergrad, so I lived there for 4 years. One bedroom apartments are not cheap--around $750-$850 per month. You might be able to find an apartment for $700/month but I think this would be very rare and probably is not a good place to live. It's much more affordable to live with roommates. Don't forget to factor in utilities. Chicago has hot summers (breaking 90 F on many days in July/August) and very cold winters (so if your apartment doesn't include gas, this would be a concern if you're living by yourself).

I can see the pro-UMD posters' points and they are all very good points. By no means was I trying to persuade you to go to GW--I was just trying to point out that their offer is very good. I would echo the above posters that you should give GW a call and explain to them your situation--you need a guarantee about the funding. If this is provided, then I would definitely choose GW over UMD. A lot of people want to get in and out of a PhD program--and for good reason! It's time to make money. But you're already earning a 60k+ salary while in grad school. This would likely imply your commanding an even higher salary relative to those graduating in PhD programs without work experience. I would even dare to say that this experience would put you, at a minimum, where your peers at UMD will be graduating on-time.

Pretty comparable. MS Statistics MPH Economic theory suggests that higher salaries go to those who specialize actually. It's good that you're risk averse. My point is that you can probably develop a lot of on-the-job skills in public health that can be transferable to outside public health. I guess my advice would be go where your interests are. I'm sure you would do well either way.

I think that of these courses the best indicator of your mathematical ability would be Complex Analysis. I've never taken it, and I've heard it's very difficult. But if you can manage a good grade in that, I'm pretty sure that adcoms will be forgiving on your Real Analysis I grade.

If you want to be a full-time student, then UMD is the clear choice. I personally think it's awesome that they're giving you a full-time job. I understand it will take longer to complete the degree (maybe even double the time), but you also would get to live in DC pretty comfortably (I live in Adams Morgan with a comparable salary), and you would get some valuable work experience. Granted, I have not been to College Park, so I cannot attest to how it is over there. I also imagine that the job might get you on some papers. I don't think it's as clear of a choice as the people above say. And, as you said, UMD is really applied-math focused. This is an imperfect substitute. Also, I could be wrong, but I believe all of GW's grad classes in statistics are night classes. I remember looking into taking a few classes there (but it was going to cost me like $5,000 for one class).

I definitely think you made the right call.

I think you wouldn't have to worry about finding a job in either field frankly. People with statistical knowledge are certainly being sought after (admittedly, however, the trend seems to be that employers are looking for PhDs rather than masters graduates), but public health is one of the hottest fields right now. I guess statistics is the better long-term investment as far as knowledge itself goes, but I also feel like experience matters a lot more when you get to mid-career levels, and I believe you will have better short-run experience with an MPH than a Masters in Statistics. This is all speculative, however.

I don't see how you're going to be able to do it personally. Are you not going to have anyone from your current program write you letters? I think it would look fishy for you not to have at least one professor from your current program write you a letter--it might raise the suspicion that you are already a PhD student. At least if you transfer, you're being honest from the get-go. It might not work in your favor to try to blatantly lie to other programs.

Too late! I already chose the University of Florida.

Maybe you're on their ordered waitlist. They emailed me a few days ago telling me I was waitlisted and asked if I was still interested in the program.

All of these programs are similarly ranked in your subfield, no? I would suggest you choose the program that you think you will be happiest at. I've heard Ann Arbor is the happiest place in the US, but it is quite expensive relative to surrounding areas in Michigan (it's pretty much as expensive as Chicago). I'm more of a city person, so I would probably choose Penn just for that factor. I think quality of life is underrated when choosing a PhD program. At the end of the day, your advisor's reputation matters more than the school's--so assuming you have at least 2 people you think you would like to work with, choose the school you'll be happiest at.

Haha I suppose that's true. Clearly, I have a biased opinion.

The GPA isn't great, as you pointed out, but I think you would be competitive at some decent MS programs (e.g., UCLA), but the top tier programs may be tough (Stanford, Berkeley come to mind). Although your stats grades are good, I think your math grades will matter more, so you definitely have a challenge. Since you're an economics major, you can try to get a job at the Fed, IMF, or World Bank (or similar institutions) and work as an RA for a couple years. Maybe take some more math classes on the side (e.g., Real Analysis). I work for one of the places I mentioned, and I was able to write a Working Paper, which I think set me apart from other candidates.

Can you give us some info regarding your research interests and/or career interests?

Evanston is an amazing city, and I'm sure there are plentiful opportunities in Chicago. I would email them and ask about their placements and stuff. They should keep such data. Good luck!

To say that Pittsburgh is markedly close to Chicago in terms of a nice place to live is preposterous. Pittsburgh is a fine city, but it's no Chicago. It's difficult to compare a city with a 300k population to that with a 2.3M population. Chicago has great public transit, a pretty cheap cost of living relative to its size, and many things to do. It even has beaches off Lake Michigan.

In that case, I agree that Stanford would be the best choice. I haven't heard much about the other programs. I know that Columbia's is brand new, but it is Columbia. Still, I think that the proximity to Silicon Valley is a huge plus.

You should also consider NCSU and University of San Francisco. Both have pretty stellar placements and starting salaries.

Thanks a lot, White Lion. So in order to make my decision more difficult, PSU nominated me for a one-year fellowship (it is not confirmed). Here's what I see about each program: PSU: Pros: The students are VERY sociable (this is pretty important to me). The professors are very nice and accessible, and seem quite laid back. They have a ton of cool research centers, although the fellowships in order to partake in these are very competitive. The academic and industry placements seem very strong. I was nominated for (but have not been confirmed for) a one-year fellowship. Cons: The location is quite terrible, with Pittsburgh being the closest city (and it's a 2.5 hour drive). The cost of living is high enough to impede one from being able to live alone (pretty important to me). Purdue: Pros: I'm from Indiana, and Purdue is quite close to home so I could come see my family whenever I wanted to. The one professor I met there I absolutely adored. We had a great connection and I would love to work with her. Their industry placements have been stellar, with some graduates this year going to Amazon, Google, and Facebook to name a few. I have a two-year fellowship. Cost of living is VERY cheap. Cons: The said professor from above is very popular, and I am unsure if she's open to taking on new students. They have not had very good academic placements in recent years. Florida: Pros: Great weather, which I think is an underrated thing since quality of life is extremely important for a PhD program. I was offered a 4-year fellowship. Academic placements have been very strong for being a mid-tier program. Cost of living is pretty favorable. A small program means I could get very focused attention. Cons: Average time to degree is 6 years. Industry placements have not been great (although the professor I want to work with has placed very well in both academia and industry). Gaining something of a bad reputation (multiple PSU faculty members warned me about going here, but admitted that Michailidis was a "great" hire--but they had no negative things to say about Purdue or A&M). The students did not seem very sociable, but I only got to meet with 3 of them. The small program implies fewer research areas, which could be a problem if I decide to switch topics.

It's not a bad commute. The train would take you there in about 2 hours 30 minutes. The only issue is that it takes you to the South Bend Airport, which is not very close to the ND campus. You would have to Uber/cab from the airport. I'm not aware if there's any shuttle or bus that takes you to campus from the airport. On the other hand, this assumes you're leaving Chicago from Millennium Station. You have to factor in commuting to the station in Chicago as well. Personally, I don't think it is worth it unless you have a very compelling reason (an internship/job that pays well, for example).

According to the graduate handbook and the MS website, you can take STA 145 (Bayesian Statistical Inference) at UC Davis as an elective course for credit towards the degree. Looking at UMich's requirements, you can take only one of STATS 414 (Introduction to Bayesian Data Analysis) or BIOSTAT 682 (Applied Bayesian Inference). UC Irvine appears to offer two courses in Bayesian statistics. According to their catalogue, you may take 5 electives, so I guess you could take both courses. Still, I am not convinced that going to a lower ranked school is worth taking one extra course in Bayesian statistics. Most people on this forum seem to believe that school reputation does not matter for going into industry. I personally am not one of these people. I suggest that you email UC Irvine and ask them about where they've placed people. Hopefully they've kept such data. If they have not, it's a red flag.

Personally, I don't think either would be good preparation for a PhD program. Michigan's program is applied statistics, which I personally feel would not make you any more competitive for PhD admissions should you decide to go that route. Also, while it's probably much cheaper than Irvine, Ann Arbor is by no means cheap. As far as UCI goes, I don't really know anything about either their masters or PhD program. If you think you'd like to go to industry, I would choose UMich. If you think you want to do a PhD, I'm not really sure which one would be better. Frankly, I think that UC Davis would actually provide you with the best situation--a school with a reputable PhD program and it's in California.