StatsG0d

Yes it will definitely hurt your chances compared to if you were able to take it this semester. Without having the grade, you probably have a shot at programs ranked Michigan and below. I will mention UCLA is pretty competitive relative to its ranking.

I think if you take real analysis and bump your GRE-Q score up to 167+ you could probably have a good shot at any PhD program outside the top 3. You should swap out one of those 3 courses this fall (preferably ML or stochastic modeling) and take real analysis instead.

Agreed. There are many applicants with weaker backgrounds that have gotten into UNC. Taking real analysis will help though. I would probably say Washington biostats is a reach without taking real analysis as they do cover some measure theory.

I don't think so. You might have a program "conditionally admit" you, but I think that is rare. Your best bet is to probably take a gap year.

Totally agree with @Stat Assistant Professor, and I would add that taking some CS classes will also be useful. In particular, Object Oriented Programming and Data Structures / Algorithms will help you out a lot, even if they don't boost your application (they will make your dissertation life easier).

I think if you get good grades (A- or better) in Calc 3 and at least Real Analysis I, your profile will be given a huge boost. Calc 3 is a prerequisite for any biostatistics / statistics program that is to be taken seriously, and Real Analysis just sends the message that you're ready to do serious math. With those, I think the biostats programs ranked 6-10 would be achievable (maybe still a little difficult), and biostats programs ranked 10+ would probably be good targets for you.

Pretty much every department will have at least some Bayesian faculty members. It's not necessary to be in a Bayesian department. My department is mostly frequentist, but I do Bayesian research. That said, the advantage of a Bayesian department is that the Bayesian training is embedded in the core curriculum. I had to take time to learn Bayesian statistics on my own.

I think it would help, but I don't think it would replace the fact that you don't have all the prerequisite courses. Maybe if you got an absolutely stellar score (>90%) I could see it replacing the courses. I know departments often list this on their web sites, but I have never heard of a student who got in despite lacking the preqrequisites.

Yeah, I'll admit that I don't know if Canadians are viewed differently among adcoms as other international students, but I would presume not as I would think that students from Peking, Tsinghua, ISI, etc. are all sure bets (perhaps even more than at Canadian universities), and even some of the top students from these schools have trouble getting into top-10 PhD programs.

I don't see Calc 3 on your profile, but since you have other advanced math classes I'll assume that you've taken that (if not, you must). You have a really strong profile, but being an international student will make it harder than if you were domestic. I would not bother applying to master's programs. You have a strong enough profile to get into PhD programs directly. There's no guarantee that Stanford's master's program will give you any advantage applying to their PhD program, as for statistics admissions usually master's and PhD's are somewhat separate (there are a few exceptions). My understanding is that you would still need to apply to the PhD program even though you'd be a master's student in the department. It is possible that they have an internal review committee for internal applicants, but I highly suspect you would still need to take the math GRE regardless. You could maybe consider looking into biostatistics departments as well as there are a lot of faculty working on precision medicine, which you might find interesting. Check out Erica Moodie's work at McGill (there are many more in the US, but she's a leader in the field and you probably have some advantage applying domestically).

I guess I'd probably retake just to not get auto-rejected. Honestly, even a 163 could make a huge difference compared to a 160.

1. Very few domestic applicants have any meaningful research experience. I wouldn't worry about this too much 2. I think you have a strong enough profile to get into PhD programs now, but I think your list is pretty unrealistic. You need to broaden the range quite a bit. Maybe apply to 1-2 of your dream schools, 2 schools in the top-5 biostats or top-20 stats, and target from there schools ranged 20-40. I would remove the ivies (save for Harvard biostat if that's your dream), as they are highly selective since they get many international students applying, despite their lower ranking. It may be worthwhile to take a gap year to have a few more advanced math classes in your profile (e.g., Real Analysis I-II, Abstract Algebra). I'd take all the advanced math classes you can handle if I were you. To summarize: if you're fine going to some lower ranked schools from what you listed, you can apply now (but take Real Analysis I). If you want to have a shot at the top programs you listed, it's probably best to do an MS. If I were you, I'd opt for applying to PhD programs now, even if they're not super highly ranked (unless you want an academic job). 3. It will affect it for sure. I think what you need are some very strong letter to break into the top. Something like a professor saying you're the best math student they've ever seen or something. Also, you absolutely need to take real analysis, preferably I and II, and that will show the adcoms that you can do serious math. 4. Not very important (for domestic students)

Although you have a degree from a top UK university, your math background is severely lacking compared to other international students. Based on your profile, you don't satisfy the prerequisites for any statistics / biostats PhD program. At a minimum, you need Calc I-III, Linear Algebra, and Real Analysis I. International students will typically have much more, including Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis II, Complex Analysis, etc. Although you may have covered these topics in mathematical methods / abstract math, I think it will be difficult to convince adcoms that you have the same knowledge as students who have dedicated individual courses to these topics To be frank, I think the only route you can take to do a stats PhD program is to take all the prerequisite courses (and then some). You're probably looking at a 2-2.5 year commitment minimum.

I do think Bio classes matter for people interested in doing genomics work, as they really need to know the biology to be taken seriously. Other than that, I agree with the statement. I agree you could apply to pretty much anywhere, but I think the top-5 might be a bit of a stretch. Not because you're not a strong applicant, but the pool for biostats has been getting a lot more competitive over the last few years, to the point where I'd say it's on par with stats programs.

I know one person who got into Berkeley stats straight from undergrad and another who got into Berkeley's biostats master's program with funding for a fast track onto the PhD program. While they may prefer MS to get into their PhD, I think their MS program funnels directly into their PhD. This is anecdotal, but I think it's worth a shot. I agree with this. I think the OP should apply to some larger departments.

Given your math grades, I think you could do a little better. I don' t think adcoms will care too much about your non-math classes provided you explain what happened in your personal statement. Given that, your school list is a little too broad IMO (high reaches, very low targets). I would adjust to something like: Reach: UNC, Michigan, Berkeley Target: Texas MD Anderson, UCLA, Emory Safety: Vandy, Pitt, Florida

Right. I was not claiming that one cannot do theoretical work at other biostats programs around the top 5 nor that these programs do not graduate really good theoretical students, I was simply trying to state that the training is not as mathematically rigorous as UNC or Washington (hence why I used italics above for emphasis). For example, Harvard requires only Casela-Berger mathstats, while Washington / UNC require at least a little measure theory.

If you're interested in real theoretical work, the only two real options for biostats are Washington and UNC, with a larger emphasis on the former. While there are faculty doing a lot of theoretical work around the top-5, the training is not as rigorous as the others. With your background, I'd be shocked if you didn't get into any of the biostats programs.

Without real analysis, you might have better luck at some biostats programs than stats programs. Even with real analysis, your math background is very minimal. It might be hard to get into any top-30 stats programs.

Agree with cyberwulf and also your profile is pretty strong--I think you're aiming way too low. I can see you want to target Ivies, but IMO it's better to apply to schools that are more highly ranked.

I don't think it will be a factor in admissions, but it could be a factor for funding. One of the grad coordinators said my work experience (no peer reviewed papers published) helped me get a fellowship offer.

I agree with @bayessays. I think your background and interests make you an ideal candidate for a biostatistics program outside of Washington and UNC.

I would say you could get into most if not all MS stats programs. I wouldn't retake the GRE unless you're thinking of going PhD.

I feel like UCLA stats would definitely want to see a formal real analysis course. Maybe not as much with UCLA biostats. I would maybe suggested you reach out to the grad coordinators of the programs that you're interested in and ask their opinion.

What's atypical about your profile is the same as me (worked for a couple years as an RA). You went to a much better undergrad than me and have about the same GPA. I got waitlisted to UCLA (ultimately decided to get off the waitlist because I already had funded offers). I would be surprised if you didn't get into at least one of UCLA, UCD, UCI, CSU. I do kind of think Washington biostats is a reach because you haven't taken a formal real analysis course. If you wanted to, you could take the math GRE and show off all those fancy independent study courses you did. I think if you did well, Washington biostats and stats would be possible.