wine in coffee cups

^ Waltham's not a terrible place to live, just suffers greatly in comparison. If you are friends with a lot of other Brandeis students who live in Cambridge/Somerville and have social events out there, you'll find it's a trek to get in there and back out in the evening (infrequent trains/buses) or will have to drive in and deal with resident only parking in a lot of neighborhoods. This social inconvenience factor was what led some of the students I know at Brandeis to move to Porter Square. If you and your husband have a social life that isn't concentrated in Camberville (for instance, if most other students you are friends with live in Waltham), then you won't mind it as much.

You are seriously considering going to Stanford over Berkeley solely so you can live with your parents?

Several points: First, forget about Putnam, AMC/AIME, etc. I realize that's how math ability is measured before college and something competitive types get fixated on, but those exams test the narrow skill of getting to clever insights in a very short period of time. That's it. Not that stat departments wouldn't look warmly on high Putnam scorers, but the type of thinking and abilities involved there are not particularly relevant to statistics research (or even the ability to succeed in upper-level math classes) and won't give you much indication if you'd do well the field or not. Most of the profiles on mathematicsgre.com are for pure or applied math. I think there were maybe a dozen-odd statistics profiles up this year and I don't remember those being overwhelmingly Putnam-y, REU-y, or grad school course-y. Admissions are not as competitive as pure math admissions and stats programs seem more welcoming of different kinds of experiences. Best way for you to figure out if you actually statistics and have the aptitude is to take more statistics, math, and CS courses and get A's. Be sure to take a calculus-based probability class and a theoretical undergraduate statistics course. Hit up multivariable calculus and linear algebra on the way. If you aren't underwater and like these classes, that's a good sign. If you still aren't underwater by the time you get to proof-based analysis courses, that's a great sign. Consider changing to a math or statistics major. (It's not like you're trying to switch to medieval gender studies in art or whatever, so I would think tiger parents could be down with math.) Not sure about your conditional MD admit arrangement, but typically med schools don't require a particular major anyway. If your parents won't let you close the med school door just yet, I suggest majoring in math and taking just the bare minimum bio/chem you need to satisfy the med school's entry requirements. Programming is a big part of day-to-day work for statisticians, so take an intro to programming class (and more advanced CS as it interests you). You should also mess around with R on your own. Eventually you'll need to get comfortable with control structures/logic/looping, debugging algorithms, processing raw data, etc. Not the most fun part of statistics, but if you really struggle to understand these concepts or despise coding with ever fiber of your being, not a great sign. Also, note that professors in all kinds of departments sometimes take on undergrad students to help clean and analyze data. Barring finding a statistics research project or REU, look out for those opportunities as they will be good experiences whether you apply to grad school right away or look for a job first. You're already doing some of this by reading about ML on your own, but try following blogs related to statistics, probability, computing, visualization, or areas of application that fascinate you and see if those sustain your interest.

Just for reference, 3.74 overall is going to be a bit below average for PhD admits at top departments like Stanford. That GPA will be viewed differently depending on the undergrad school -- probably not working in larrybirdman's favor unless the state school he attends is UC Berkeley or UVa or the like. I don't consider it a low GPA at all and I doubt it's a dealbreaker, but his math/stat grades will need to be close to 4.0. Finding reference points where I can (some are PDFs): Stanford (admitted students) - average GPA 3.88; average GRE V 83%, Q 91%, W 52%, math subject 82% (yowza) Duke (enrolled students, most recent data) - average GPA 3.8; average GRE V 598, Q 794 University of Washington (enrolled students, most recent data, non-enrolled also listed with higher GPAs) - average GPA 3.77; average GRE V 651, Q 786 Would love to see more data for other statistics departments if anyone can dig it up.

Unless the OP meant Wisconsin?

Crazy things happen but you've got to be realistic going into this. Google homework for you: has anyone written a statistics dissertation in the past, say, 10 years with an emphasis on sports applications? If so, read what comes up and see if that gives you some better perspective on what you're potentially getting into. (And if not, then you need to re-think stats PhDs.)

prospectivestudent89, thanks for the added information! I'm feeling more optimistic about your fit in statistics with these details. Good start! I'd keep on researching to try to select a set of at least a half dozen programs (you probably want more) that are good matches research-wise with a range of selectivities. Said Berkeley prof, if it's who I'm thinking of, seems somewhat likely to retire in the near future (DOB in the 1930s, you do the math...), so keep that in mind. I think Wharton a good fit for your interests, though very hard to get into. Cultivate a balanced mix of programs since it's so hard to predict how your application will be received. These are great points to formalize and include in your statements. Showing your enthusiasm for statistics as expressed through the lens of baseball should help you connect with your readers. Completely agree with this course advice. I still feel that the subject test is not worth the effort unless he is definitely going to apply to a program that requires it. I had a 58th percentile from back in college and was told by my former prof that it wasn't going to help my applications. Besides, looking at how others' stat PhD apps turned out this year (here and at mathematicsgre.com), even a very good subject score doesn't seem to help that much and not submitting one doesn't actually seem to hurt. Everything else seems to matter so much more: your recommendations (above all), your grades, and your statements. Say you go through all the effort to prep and take it and get, like, 35th percentile. What do you do with that? That's not a bad score per se (given the population who takes the test, as I said before), but that's probably not going to open doors for you that weren't already open without it, you know?

Okay, thanks for the additional information. I've got some more thoughts and questions for you. Long post warning: I'm wordy, I used to work as a career advisor, and I just went through the grad school application process myself so I'm bursting with advice to inflict on others. First, how sure are you that it's statistics you want to study and not one of your specific areas of application? I think it's a question that everyone with applied leanings should consider. You didn't mention taking any actual statistics classes which makes me wonder how much you've engaged with the subject beyond liking some of the areas it is used in. You might find that a masters in mathematical finance or applied math is more appropriate to your preparation, interests, and career plans than statistics. Sports statistics is niche and I suspect PhD programs might not likely take you seriously if that's what you say you want to study. Maybe there are some academic researchers engaging with the topic (at Wharton maybe?), but you should figure out whether this is the case or not. I also would guess they are more likely to be in economics or business departments than in statistics departments. My impression is that it's more a hobbyist area and that professional sports analysts/Nate Silver types are largely self-taught. I doubt you'd need a PhD if that's what you wanted to do professionally and that a master's in stats would be a better idea if only to get more stat training. Here is a place to start researching this path: http://www.amstat.org/sections/SIS/ While financial statistics is certainly an active area of research in many statistics departments (e.g. time series, high frequency data), that particular application might not be well represented everywhere, so you'd want to do more careful research than just getting fixated on the big names. I think you'll find that some of those turn out not to be such a good fit. Spend this spring and summer doing due diligence. As you look at different programs, think about what you would specifically say in your essays if you applied. Try even starting some outlines with bullet points of what you would bring up. Beefing up your math preparation won't overcome a fit issue and I think people going into math-related fields underestimate how much this matters. Don't forget that getting a job in finance after finishing your master's might be a much better idea than more grad school right away! If that's what you want to do and you don't need additional training -- and I don't think you do -- then may as well try that out. You do have fairly easy access to NYC and Boston for interviews, after all. About the GRE math subject test: do not underestimate how much of a pain in the ass this is and how little reward you will probably get from it. Yes, if you do well on it and apply to PhD programs, it will help with any doubts about your mathematical preparation. But that is such a big "if" that I think you won't want to bother with all the effort needed to perform at a level that will work in your favor, and very few places require it. Given that the population who takes the math subject GRE is a very self-selected group -- mostly pure math majors who like the subject enough to want to pursue a PhD in it and have more advanced classes than you and competitive math experience -- it's just really hard to get a good percentile relative to them even with lots of prep.

You're in-state at UW? Go there! Don't pay more for undergrad than you need to. Follow cyberwulf's advice for courses and summer research. Maybe you can find summer internships at the Hutch, among other great places for biostat-related research in Seattle.

My program doesn't start until late September (and insurance coverage doesn't kick in until October), my SO is stuck here for another year, I really like my job, I'm not inclined to stop the biweekly paychecks from rolling in, and I don't even know what I'd do with my time if I quit now. So I'm sticking it out at work until Labor Day with a planned vacation in July and taking other time off as needed to get set up on the other coast.

Definitely take advanced calculus/real analysis (whatever the first proof-based calculus course is called at Fairfield). Though I don't think it's needed for masters programs, it won't hurt, and you'll need it if you do apply for PhD programs. An analysis course covering measure theory would be a plus for PhD admissions but not necessary. Abstract algebra and functional analysis are not necessary even for PhD admissions. If there is an advanced linear algebra course, that would be helpful but not necessary. I notice a conspicuous lack of actual statistics courses, though! Isn't an introductory stats course usually a prerequisite for econometrics (which would have been required for your major)? I'm a little puzzled, a more complete academic history would be helpful here. But stepping back even more: why statistics? Tell me the gist of what you think you'll say in your statement of purpose. How'd you get from economics to the math MS to statistics? How do you know you want to do research in statistics? What are you hoping to do with a masters or PhD in statistics?

Check to make sure there isn't actually a page online to formally accept/decline (which might be why your status isn't changed). When I emailed the director of a program to let him know I was declining, he replied to remind me to also go through the online accept/decline page because they couldn't actually release my spot to another student without that step. I would wait for the offer letter, in any case. It will probably have instructions on how to accept/decline.

God forbid people approach the process permitting entry into their chosen career in a professional, informed way. Those who stick with academia will continue applying for things for the rest of their careers: postdocs, tenure track positions, grants. May as well get good at it now and may as well know what to expect in the future.

What's the financial aid situation? If the cost to you is similar at all three, definitely Oberlin! This is a weird set of schools to be choosing from but Oberlin is clearly the strongest academically. Top liberal arts colleges like Oberlin have excellent graduate school placement records, so if that's what you're after, it's your best choice. Even if you didn't go to grad school right away, it would also have the strongest job placement -- I will say anecdotally that my firm recruits from Oberlin and similar schools, but an applicant from KU or Richmond wouldn't have a chance absent being like, the child of our biggest client, those just don't have the national recognition. At Oberlin, you will have small classes, professors who love teaching and doing research with undergrads (for example, this guy), and intelligent and driven peers who challenge you. Strongly recommend.

You're going to need to retake the GRE no matter what: You built up a relationship so strong with UNC Charlotte that they are willing to do every cartwheel they can think of to get you started this fall while meeting the university's minimum GRE requirements. It may seem arbitrary, but clearly a hard line has been drawn and it matters to somebody there that you cross it. You did not have such a great connection with the other schools (I assume?) and didn't have anybody inside to advocate for you. It's not unreasonable to suspect that they might have GRE cutoffs too, even that the reason you might not be hearing good things from them is because you aren't hitting their score marks. If you're going to do this over again and do it right, you'll need to retake the GREs. Having just a month to study isn't ideal, but seems like you may as well sign up to take it soon. Practice doing the timed essay prompts every other day -- the upside of each piece having a 30 minute limit is they also won't take up much of your evening leisure time. Do sample math sections in a prep book on the nights you don't do the essays. It's doable without taking over your life and I think will be well worth it.

Am I alone in thinking this is a bit tacky? In my view, you're not really affiliated with the program until you actually start. I don't think it's a big deal -- I mean, come on, it's facebook, this will have about equal weight with "which of these 100 foods have you tried?" quiz apps in peoples' newsfeeds -- but it strikes me as jumping the gun when I see that a friend has updated their education/employment status months before they actually start. You wouldn't update your city until you actually move to it, so why update the school? Just my view.

Cashcow, probably, but isn't every single master's program? Seems like some public universities are finally putting into place what Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, etc. figured out a while ago. The core courses are basically what the stats PhD students without master's already take in their first two years, minus the year of analysis and the advanced theory sequence. I don't think the quality of the training in the new MS program is in question, but you would obviously be a guinea pig. I could see it going either way. On on hand, there could be some administrative hiccups and the department just doesn't know what to do with you. But on the other, if the starting cohort is smaller than future cohorts (because it's new and relatively unadvertised?) and they're trying to make sure the program is successful, you could potentially get better advising and more attention than you would at a more established master's program. Sorry you have to make a decision so quickly, best of luck! I'll be starting in the PhD program this fall, maybe see you there?

I've been out for some years now too, but I think it actually made my application stronger because of how I framed it. It helps to be able to talk about how what you've been doing has shaped your research interests. Think seriously about what kinds of topics you might want to work on in grad school and how you can connect those with where you've been (both back in college and in the past few years) and show that it will make you more likely to succeed as a student and researcher. Find your story, then share that when you reconnect with your potential letter writers to help them say nice things (as well as reinforce your message).

The people whose research most sounds like the kind of work you think you'd enjoy doing yourself -- what departments are they in? Just look at the affiliations of the authors of your favorite academic articles and start looking on those websites to get a more concrete sense of the programs and outcomes. Also, don't feel like you have to figure this out soon, not even this year (or the next, or ever). You're a math major at a top 10 school with a great GPA, programming and research experience, and lots of publications already. If anyone has a profile that's going to appeal to a lot of types of employers and fellowship funders, it's yours, whether they are interested in general brainpower or actually are looking for specific skills. Even in this economy, you are in a good position to take time off after graduating and try something out, so don't feel like you need to find a field you like now just so you can stay in school.

Sounds like you have worthy goals and can probably put together a pretty interesting statement of purpose talking about how you got there from your work experience. That plus good letters of recommendation and the double Ivy League degrees is going to get you in somewhere good. You should be thinking about making the case for "why statistics" or "why biostatistics" as opposed to other fields that can lead to policy roles. Talking about your master's class project and why you enjoyed it will help show your enthusiasm for statistics specifically, I think, and overcome limited research. I don't think you're aiming too high. I would not limit yourself to those four programs, though -- presumably you make a fair amount of money working in finance, so don't be afraid to pay fees to a lot of schools to make sure you have great options. You might look at the CMU joint program in stats and public policy (one of my rejections, womp womp).

The University of Washington has a new masters program and I think is still accepting applications for this fall. Obviously it has no reputation to speak of being new, though.

Are you referring to prior authorization? Usually that's in place because a drug is expensive with cheaper alternatives the plan wants you to try first or you are outside the demographic that uses the drug for its FDA-approved conditions. (Here's a decent primer on it.) The process involves your physician filling out forms justifying your need, basically, but generally plans will approve PA requests once the documentation is there. You should really figure out why your treatment needs prior auth, though -- if the plan is looking for evidence that you've tried and failed on a less expensive therapeutic equivalent, well, you're going to need to have actually done that, doesn't matter how wholeheartedly the doc recommends the drug! Some Googling ([generic name] "prior authorization") should help you out -- typically the big insurers like Blue Cross, Aetna, state Medicaid programs, etc. will have information targeted towards medical professionals that should clue you in to why the medication has a prior auth restriction and what documentation they need.

Really helpful responses, thanks to everyone so far for your thoughtful input! I can't say I'm closer to a decision yet but hopefully I can get my act together soon. And apologies for being that annoying person complaining that my life is toooooo awesome.

Hi everyone, been going on visits and doing a lot of thinking but having a hard time converging on a single statistics PhD program. I've narrowed it down to Berkeley, Duke, and the University of Washington, all of which I visited and really liked. These are all great programs so in most senses I can't go wrong, but I can't enroll in all of them and need to make a decision soon under some basis. My leanings keep drifting each day and my gut instincts aren't kicking in, so any comments or advice to spark some new lines of thinking would be much appreciated! Rambling thoughts below, which sadly are condensed versions of what's been turning over in my head and in conversations with my beleaguered friends and colleagues. Berkeley: Fantastic location, top notch reputation, and everyone I talk to who isn't in statistics thinks this is the glaringly obvious choice. My research interests are in applications of statistics to the social sciences, though, and there are only a couple of faculty who would make sense as potential advisors within the department, both of whom I liked but whose research is a little removed from my own interests (still curious to learn about, it's just a matter of degree). I can have an advisor outside the department to give me more options, but that's more work on my part to make those connections happen. I'm thinking the program might still just be too theoretical for me but it's hard to say, they don't think so, and I don't want to rule it out on this basis prematurely. A current student there finishing up who has a similar applied orientation and worked with both of the faculty I'm interested in gave me a lot of reassurance that this can work for me, but it still seems like more of a stretch than the other two departments. I made the mistake of looking up the webpages of current students and am cowed by how accomplished they were upon entering the program -- I get the sense that I'd be an intellectual runt and am concerned about potentially not being able to complete the degree in a timely fashion since I am not coming in with a master's (NRC data suggest as much but I'm not sure how relevant those dated numbers are). If I did make it out unscathed, though, I'd have solid placement potential. I've been offered a VIGRE of $27K for the first 12 months with some light obligations, but don't have a great idea of what my package would look like in subsequent years (certainly a mix of GSI and GSR, just not sure if the dollar amount would be that different -- I suspect not). High cost of living for sure, but current students sounded like they were getting by okay on their packages. I have a few friends in the area but no other strong ties. Duke: My impression when I visited was that it was cultish, for lack of a better term (very into themselves and unabashedly Bayesian), but in a way I was okay with. I appreciate the efficiency of the department in getting students involved in research early and getting them out quickly. There are a couple of faculty there who I really liked, particularly one in a specialized area I am interested in that isn't represented in the other departments and whose students had glowing things to say about working with him. I think it's a slightly better fit than Berkeley research-wise. The various Research Triangle connections are appealing, no shortage of interesting and funded work to go around. My concern -- based mainly on the reactions of faculty and students at other departments when asked where else I'm considering -- is that this program might be viewed as a little narrow, has ascended the rankings too recently to have a reputation, or something. In any case, for reasons not known to me I'm getting puzzled looks about liking it as much as I do, so I'm wondering if I've drunk the Kool-Aid and need to step back. I'm not connected enough to the academic statistics community to be able to figure out what the perceptions are and am having a hard time getting an informed sense of how graduates of this program are viewed. One major upside is they've given me an obscene financial package that includes no responsibilities outside of classes my first semester (so that I can ease back into being in school since I've been out for a while), a RA position my second semester to jump right into research, and $32K for my first 12 months (I think staying at that level every year). Given the cost of living in Durham, that's quite a chunk of change, and I really like the department so I'm loathe to turn down this generous and tailored offer lightly. I'm not sure how I feel about Durham as a town, certainly less exciting than the other two options, but it's still a decent-sized city and I think I could be happy living there, it just doesn't vibe with my crunchy urban liberal granola yogurt orientation as obviously as Berkeley and Seattle. Main downsides of living there are that I have no personal ties (don't want to feel socially isolated and making friends outside the department might be hard), the weather is too hot in the summer months, and I despise the basketball culture. UW: My main research interest is in applications of statistics to the social sciences, and they have a whole interdepartmental center working on these very topics! So in terms of research fit it's a slam dunk, there are many great potential advisors and I really liked the faculty and students I met. I also like the integration with biostats for the first year coursework for social reasons -- makes a relatively small program feel a lot bigger. My impression is that it's well regarded in the statistics world and that I should be able to place decently coming out of it (even if I bristle at what a Berkeley prof told me, that UW is good but Berkeley is "a tier up"). Unfortunately, this is a cash-strapped public university, and while I am still adequately funded, it's worse than what I'm being offered at the other two departments (well, maybe comparable with Berkeley once cost of living is accounted for). This includes a couple of supplemental fellowships as it is, so I doubt any additional funding is possible, especially given the department's financial troubles a few years ago. (I will say that current students seemed surprisingly unconcerned about this.) My first year package is about $22K for 9 months, but I believe that will drop to around $16K in subsequent years if I don't find outside funding and will have to do some legwork to figure out summers. This also comes with the most onerous TA time demands. I'm in a good situation to deal with this because I have a lot of savings and don't mind being kept honest with some TA work, but all things considered, the other offers would make for an easier transition back into the academic world. I have strong family/friend connections to the Seattle area, particularly love the music scene and having access to the mountains, and know I would be happy living there again. So: three great options with relatively minor downsides in the grand scheme of things and I'm dreading having to turn two of these down. The other relevant dimension to this is the two-body problem. Partner of many years is finishing up his PhD in pure math next spring. He's at an okay pure math department (top 50? 40 maybe?) but he's at least one of their star students and his advisor is well regarded in his subfield. He will be trying to do an academic job search this fall targeting the geographic area I choose. For getting through that first year apart, Duke is the winner because of shorter flights, whereas one or both of us will be in a jet-lagged fog and burn through a lot of money if we try to do the cross-country haul to/from Seattle or Berkeley more often than every couple of months. But, it's just a year apart, so it's an important consideration but I'm trying to think in the short, medium, and long terms. Job opportunities aren't great for his field, but picking the least overtly sucky of these areas would be nice. Duke has the other triangle institutions nearby so there would potentially be a decent number teaching positions, but his particular subfield doesn't seem to have as much activity at any of the three universities (so postdocs are not too likely) and it's not clear how competitive the teaching positions are or what other opportunities are available outside of those schools. Berkeley and Stanford being the main players in the Bay Area makes me think the competition is going to be too intense to be viable. Seattle has the UW but not much else aside from some smaller private schools, I think the market isn't great but there is some potential for postdocs and teaching positions. I'm wishing now that he had a more applied orientation because that would open up more doors and make this easier, but you can't change the one you love, etc. If you made it this far, thoughts?

Fourthed(?) CMU.