Severina

Go to Harvard. I have a friend who years ago chose UCLA over Harvard for his PhD and spent the rest of his career regretting passing up the opportunity to get Harvard on his resume.

From what I've seen, biostat grad program admissions is far more interested in your research experience than your teaching experience.

UC San Diego's Biostats program is a joint program with San Diego State. I know of a graduate from about 3 years ago who got a good postdoc at UCLA.

All three are top programs from which you can get a good job or get into a top PhD program (assuming you get good grades). Focusing on whether the school in question is ranked #1, #3, or #5 is slicing the baloney a little too thin. Pretty much any top ten program can take you wherever you want to go. Focus instead of the content and requirements of the individual programs.

I doubt it. That article didn't come out until mid-December, which is kinda late to be putting an application together if you weren't already on track to do so.

Forbes ranks Statistics as the number 2 best master's degree for employment: http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-10-best-and-worst-masters-degrees-for-jobs-right-now/10/ And Biostatistics is number 1: http://www3.forbes.com/leadership/the-10-best-and-worst-masters-degrees-for-jobs-right-now/11/

I think you have a decent shot at some masters programs. Thus, IMO you should apply to both masters and PhD programs (at different schools). That way if you don't get into a PhD department, which is your ultimate goal, you can enroll in one of the masters ones. If you do well in the masters then getting into a PhD in a couple of years will not be so difficult.

If you already have an MPH-Biostats degree It's not clear to me what advantage you would gain with an MS Biostats degree. I understand that an MS and MPH are not exactly the same, but the overlap in statistical coursework is likely to be significant. I could see going for a PhD in Biostats not a masters.

Berkeley Biostats does not guarantee funding for masters students, but they pretty all get it offered because they need a lot of TAs for undergrad stat sections.

It's common in many programs for all PhD students to get funding, but you should never assume (about anything, especially something involving money) that what applies to one program applies to them all. So check with the websites or ask the department directly for any programs in which you are interested.

Apart from what employers may think, another question to ask is how much will you know? Based on the courses and work load, will you learn as much in 1 year at St. Andres as you would in two years at the US schools? St. Andrews may be fine at first to get hired, but things could be difficult later if you turn out not to have the skill set and knowledge that US employers would expect from someone with a masters in Statistics.

I think it's okay, but IMO their PhD program in conjunction with UCSD is a lot better.

They are not all cash cows. Admissions to Berkeley's Biostat masters program is very competitive, and they enroll only about 6 - 8 new students each year.

I was generally interested in PhD programs but I applied only to master's programs for several reasons: 1. Most people are able to get a good job with only a master's in stats or biostats. (This is not true for all branches for all branches of science - for some fields it is basically PhD or nothing) A stats/biostats PhD is a requirement only for an academic career, and a PhD is probably better career-wise in the long run in industry as well, but career prospects for masters are still pretty good. 2. My grades were good enough for masters' programs but getting into a selective PhD program probably would have been tough with a 3.5. However, if I do well in the master's program and wish to keep going, my masters performance will likely get me into a good PhD program. 3. You never know how much you will enjoy grad school (or not) until you get there, and at the outset signing on for a two year program is a lot less daunting than committing to 4-6 years required for PhD. If you are borderline for PhD programs you may wish to do what one of my friends did . He applied primarily to MS programs (in Biochem) but he also took a shot, however long, and tossed in a couple of PhD apps as well. And, mirabile dictu, one of the PhD programs accepted him. He's now in his second year of that PhD program.

Yes, you still have a shot, especially at a masters program. My undergrad GPA was 3.52 and I got accepted by all seven biostat/stat masters programs to which I applied, including UC Davis, UCLA, and UC Berkeley. I can decide along the way whether to continue on to PhD. I had solid undergrad research experience, so maybe you should work hard to achieve that and also try to get your GPA up to 3.5.

I don't know of any exact cut-off, but I'd that GRE-V is probably the least important stat for applying to these types of programs.

For Biostats MS I'd say you have excellent chances at many schools, including some of the big hitters. However, I see nothing but big hitters on your list. If I were you I'd throw in a few more from the next tier down to round out your list. Your GRE-V is perhaps your least important stat, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Berkeley doesn't promise funding for masters students, but they often get it because there are more assistantships to be filled than the PhD students can cover.

I'm not sure about PhD programs, but yes, it is possible to get into the Masters program at some of those schools with a GPA of 3.5. I. got into the Masters Biostat programs at Berkeley and UCLA (among others) with a 3.5. It probably depends a lot on how you do in individual courses. I got an A or A- in all my undergrad math and stat courses and a 166 on the quant GRE, which I think showed that I was at least competent in my math abilities even if my overall grades were only okay and not sky-high.

If you can't articulate your dissatisfaction with your current program how will you be confident that you won't run into the same or similar problem at a new school? How will you even know what to look for when searching for a new school to apply to? "Not content" is a vague enough problem that it could apply to almost anyone in any department. I bet the number grad students in the entire US who are fully content with their programs can be counted on one hand. I suggest you sit down and ask yourself hard questions about what you really want to achieve. And if the answer to part of that is to earn a PhD then I'd say your best bet is buckle down and figure out a way to either fix or at least paper over your dissatisfactions and focus on finishing your current program. I think there are just too many risks, ifs, and unforseen difficulties in taking a masters and then reapplying to different PhD programs later. You've already scored a big success by getting into a funded PhD program in the first place. Take the bird in hand. Letting it go and going searching for a different one with better feathers seems like a real longshot. Especially since you can't really say what's wrong with the current bird.

I'd take the UMD option. UMD is the more direct path to your goal of earning a PhD. Plus the funding is assured. Part-time study while working a full-time job sounds like a recipe for endless grad school. And the longer you drag out grad school the greater the risk that something will come up or circumstances will change and you won't finish.

I have no direct experience with that department or campus, but I did spend some time looking at it when making up my list of schools to apply to. To begin with, it's very likely "worth it" since as a CA resident your tuition should be modest at a CSU campus. However, depending on your educational and career goals it may or may not get you where you want to go. I spent more time looking at the Biostats option in that department rather than straight Stats, so perhaps not everything I concluded applies equally to the stats track. But my impression of the Biostats track was it was a program designed for working professionals in the biotech/pharma industry seeking to boost their skills or value to their employer rather than for students coming straight out of academia. For example all their courses are taught at 4 PM or later - in other words "night school." Also, they did not talk much about sending any students on to PhD programs. They just said that they would work with you to design a program that would qualify you for a PhD program if that's what you wanted. But it was not their focus. The path to a PhD prgram was clearly not a well-trodden option. So taking all this together I decided not to apply, since I may well choose to go for PhD if my Masters experience goes well. But you may be looking for other things. Overall I would view East Bay as more of a vocational option rather than an academic one. If that fits with your goals, go for it.

I think some employers can sometimes be smitten by a big brand name of the caliber of say Harvard, Stanford, or MIT. They'd like to brag to their customers and/or to themselves that they have really smart employees from top institutions. But all three schools you mention are reputable state schools of roughly equal prestige. Worrying about whether a school's undergrad program is ranked say 20th vs. 35th by this or that ranking system is probably slicing the baloney a little too thin, especially when talking about pursuing a graduate degree. All three will provide you with pretty much the same excellent employment opportunities. Among those choices, I'd say go to whichever one has the program and location you like the best combined with having the least debt when you graduate.

IMO you will have good job prospects with either degree, so I would not decide on that basis. If you can afford Harvard without going into big debt, I'd say take it. If not, the question becomes is the Harvard brand cachet worth more to you than the student loan debt you would incur? For me I'd take on a modest amount of debt to go to Harvard. But if it required big debt then I'd say NCSU.

That's what they were hoping.. That's exactly why schools have profs do these recruitment calls. We compete with other applicants for slots, and we beg on our applications and hope in hearts that the schools accept us. But once the acceptances go out the shoe immediately shifts to the other foot. Then it's the schools' turn to compete with each other and hope and beg the accepted students to pick them.