StatsG0d

Correct. Exclude biostatistics programs.

No department *just* focuses on application. You will always have a Casella-Berger level of mathstats at any respectable department. The question is really how deep in theory you want to go. UW and UNC have essentially identical curricula and are often considered to be the most rigorous. Similar to UNC, Harvard requires one semester in a foundational measure theoretic probability course. JHU also has a very rigorous curriculum, with a year-long sequence of measure theoretic probability theory. After the top-4, it falls off pretty quickly in terms of very rigorous theoretical training. FYI, Michigan probably isn't the best place to go if you're interested in theory as they are a very genetics focused department. AFAIK they do not offer any measure theory at all, but I think you could take it in the stats department if you're interested.

Your GRE score is pretty low. I think you should shoot for a minimum 165 and preferably 167+ on your retake. I think what hurts your application the most is those two B's in analysis. I think you should try to take one more upper level theoretical math course like Abstract Algebra or Complex Analysis and try to aim for an A- or higher. That will reassure adcoms that you can do well in theoretical math courses. If you do both of those, I think you have a good shot at biostats departments outside the top-3 and stats programs outside the top-20

I would say no. I'm in biostats, and I have gotten offers / interviews on Wall Street, government, postdocs, etc. I think many applicants (and indeed many statistics PhD students) assume that biostatistics departments only do applied work. This is true for some biostatistics departments, but certainly not all. Biostatistics departments in the top-10 are very engaged in methodological work. IMO, the fundamental difference between statistics and biostatistics programs is that in biostatistics the problems are motivated by medicine / public health and in statistics they are motivated by that as well as other things. Here are some "hot" research areas in statistics where a biostatistical application exists: Spatial-temporal: medical imaging (e.g., finding tumors) Bayesian: Bayesian clinical trials (e.g., interim analyses) Machine learning: precision medicine (e.g., finding the treatment at the right time for the right individual) Computational statistics: genetics Dimension reduction: genetics Causal inference: any observational public health study The only real constraint with biostatistics is that your methods must be relevant to some kind of public health or medical setting, broadly speaking (e.g., basically anything dimension reduction related will be relevant to genetics).

A few notes: Differential equations and discrete math aren't particularly useful for statistics, but they send a signal that you can do math at a higher level than most, which is important Biostatistics departments are very actively researching the topics you've mentioned. It varies greatly, but for some departments, the only thing that really differs between stats / biostats is that biostats develops methods to be used in medical settings (e.g., clinical trials, electronic health records, genetics). I would argue that computational statistics is just as strong in biostats as stats, due to interesting problems like having the number of covariates being larger than the number of observations. Lots of people in biostats do Machine Learning research, and it kind of has a causal inference flavor to it since the setting is usually clinical trials. A 164 GRE is on the lower end these days, but I don't think it will automatically reject you from stats departments outside the top-20 and biostats departments outside the top-3 As @bayessays said, your results are going to be heavily determined by how well you do in real analysis and your letters. I do think that if you did a gap year and took analysis II in your second semester this year and maybe one other upper-level math course, your profile would be very strong.

The Mathematical Methods for Statistics course is not a substitute for a standalone, proof-based linear algebra course taken within a math department, and since your linear models course only covers applied linear algebra, this would also not satisfy admissions criteria. It seems you have not taken any proof-based math courses. I think most departments would automatically reject you for this. Maybe some lower-ranked biostatistics departments who are only focused on applied work would accept you, but I still think, at best, you would be a marginal case. At a minimum, you should take a proof-based linear algebra course in a math department and Analysis I. If you add on Analysis II, you give yourself a tremendous boost and would be competitive for biostats programs outside Washington and stats programs outside the top-15. Add on something like complex analysis or abstract algebra, and you will have a good shot almost anywhere. You should note that admissions for stats/biostats are much more competitive than they were a half decade ago when I applied. With COVID-19, probably more people are going to be applying for grad schools making it even harder.

I agree with @Casorati. Many 30-50 programs (e.g., Florida, FSU) are considered safeties by applicants from schools renowned for developing strong PhD students, such as Peking, Tsinghua, and ISI. These students have very deep math backgrounds. I do not think simply taking analysis will cut it. I think you would need to take Analysis I-II and complex analysis, at a minimum, to be competitive. If you throw in abstract algebra or some other high level proof based class, it would help even more. You're probably looking at a 1.5 year commitment in the best case scenario. The only other thing you could do is to get a very high score on the math subject GRE.

IMO your target schools are more reaches and your safeties are more targets. As an international student, the bar is much higher for you than or domestic applicants. I think it will depend a lot on letters for you. Perhaps your schools is known for grade deflation (e.g., a B for you is more like an A- in the US or something). If so, you stand a good chance--just make sure your writers mention this and you mention it as well in your SOP. I think you should reach for programs ranked 30-40; target 40-50; and safety 50 and below.

In my (biostats) department at least, I'd say the vast majority of the money comes from grant money (e.g., NIH). You're right though that for larger schools where there's a lot of TA opportunities funding is pretty robust to economic shocks.

I'd amend this and say any letter writer should at least have a PhD in a quantitative discipline (e.g., economics, physics, CS) and can attest to your mathematical ability. Prefer those who have PhDs in stats or math.

There are some standards but those for PhDs are markedly higher, and you'll find that master's students vary greatly in terms of mathematical background. Yours will likely be towards the deeper end of the spectrum. There are many successful masters applicants (usually domestic) at very prestigious departments who possess only the minimum background (Calc I-III, Linear Algebra).

There are a couple issues here: Business departments rely on government funding much less than arts and sciences departments Private universities also rely much less on government funding So given that this department is private and in a business school, I'd say it could be quite different than the rest of the departments.

I think that's a good idea. Lots of programs have an internal review process for applicants who attended their master's. You might want to consider adding some biostatistics programs as well, as the math requirements are typically significantly less and you might have some better luck with transferring.

I agree with @Stat Assistant Professor. To be frank, I don't think you have much of a shot at any of those schools. You should probably focus on the programs ranked below the top 30.

IMO it's always better to have letters from people who can attest to your math ability. If your advisor at work can do that, I'd say go for it. If not, maybe consider sending 4 letters for places that allow it, adding another math/stats professor.

I would maybe retake the GRE if I were you. A 163 from an international student is relatively weak. As your institution as not as well-known as the ones @Stat Assistant Professor mentioned, you don't want to leave any doubts to the admissions committees. You should aim for a 167+.

I think your list of schools is fine. You'll probably get into most of them.

1. Yes. 3. If you think you're potentially interested in PhD programs later on (which it sounds like you are), the general recommendation is to apply to them directly. Most will consider you for MS if you get rejected, and worst case scenario, you can leave with a master's degree.

Only a few of those schools you listed have stats PhDs (Stanford, UCB, UCLA, Michigan, Yale, Columbia). You have a very strong profile and I would not rule you out at any of these schools. I think you should add some better schools like Washington, Duke, etc.

1. A 165Q is more than sufficient for MS programs 2. Yes--Ivy League schools are more competitive despite their ranking. But I think the small caveat here is that the more highly ranked programs have more employers recruiting (e.g., NCSU, UNC, and Duke will have a ton of employers recruiting from the research triangle, and because these programs are prestigious, the employers will look for stats people). 3. If you're interested in stat PhD, I recommend you post your complete profile to see if you could get into stat programs directly.

I think your stats list is much too bottom heavy. I'm sure you could get into some top-10 stats programs and some top-3 biostatistics programs. Check out U Washington biostats--they have some interesting faculty doing ML research.

I think you would need to post your whole profile in order to judge. In general, I would say that a 160Q is sufficient for most (if not all) MS Programs in biostatistics (not true for PhD programs however, so if that's in your future, it's probably worthwhile to retake). Since you got a decent score, I think I would go ahead and submit it.

Sorry--I thought this was for a PhD evaluation. OP: I would follow @bayessays advice above. Your profile is fine for master's.

First, I don't think Emory really has a stats department. Perhaps you meant Emory biostats? To be frank, I don't really think you have much of a chance at any of those programs unless your school is renowned for serious grade deflation. You also haven't taken real analysis, which will hurt your application. You might be able to get into some stats programs ranked 30 and below.

Try posting over at www.mathematicsgre.com. Most of the users of this forum are stats / biostats oriented.