abstract_art

Just wanted to come here to say that you might not want to go around saying that spending $100 for each school you apply to isn't a big deal! Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are not well represented in statistics and biostatistics, and this sort of mentality doesn't help. See e.g. this twitter thread. To actually comment on the original question in this post, my department is accepting the same number of people as in previous years.

Almost certain @GoPackGo89 meant UNC (and Michigan) biostats (regardless there are faculty in both stats and biostats at UNC that don't just do theory, so this comment seems a bit odd).

You don't need a bio background to get into any biostats phd program, it probably doesn't even help in a lot of cases since programs want to see first and foremost that you have the math background to handle their coursework. I majored in math/cs (took one stats class during undergrad) and got into good biostats programs, your background won't be a problem.

Just want to throw out that I've heard anecdotes of students being admitted to all of the programs that recommend the Math GRE w/o taking it (including Stanford!)

If you can afford a mac, I'd recommend to just dish out the cash and get one (preferably a pro). Lots of programming languages/computational tools used in stats are made with unix systems in mind, so it eases a lot of getting things to work. If you don't want to pay for a mac, getting some linux laptop would be the next best route if you're comfortable with using linux (it's not for everyone). Of course getting a cheaper windows laptop is also fine, you're probably just going to go through more hassle to get stuff to work.

I don't think there's a reason for you to not apply to UW, you have a shot. You don't need to take the math gre if you don't think you'll do well on it, it won't hurt you if you haven't taken it (but doing very well on it, like 75%+, would probably help). If you really want to go to UW you should also apply to the biostats program since the two departments are well connected/ you can work with profs in either department while in either program.

@rosebud123 Yeah just go through the last 5 or so years here: http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/people/alumni/alumphd.shtml

@StatHopeful Some of your ties are off for biostats. Here's what I got for the full lists. For reference here were the last set of rankings https://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/52537-2014-usnwr-rankings-statisticsbiostatistics/. Stat 1. Stanford 2. Berkeley 3. Harvard, Chicago 5. CMU, Washington 7. Duke, Michigan, Penn 10. Columbia, NCSU, Wisconsin 13. UNC 14. Cornell, Iowa State, Penn State, Texas A&M 18. Minnesota 19. Purdue 20. Hopkins, UC Davis, UCLA, Yale 24. Ohio State, Illinois Urbana-Champaign 26. Rutgers, Florida, Iowa 29. Rice 30. Colorado State, Florida State, Connecticut 33. Michigan State, UC Irvine, UT Austin 36. Northwestern, Pitt 38. George Washington, NYU, Georgia, Missouri, VTech 43. UC Santa Barbara 44. Indiana, Southern Methodist, UMBC, Virginia 48. Oregon State, UC Riverside, Massachusetts Amherst, South Carolina 52. Arizona State, Case Western, Temple 55. Baylor, George Mason, Kansas State, Colorado Denver 59. Kentucky, VCU 61. San Diego State 62. UNC Charlotte, UT San Antonio Biostat 1. Harvard, Hopkins, Washington 4. UNC 5. Michigan 6. Berkeley 7. Minnesota, Wisconsin 9. Columbia, UCLA, UT MD Anderson 12. Penn, Yale 14. Emory 15. Brown, Duke, Vanderbilt 18. BU, UC Davis 20. Florida, Iowa, Rochester, UT Houston 24. Medical College of Wisconsin 25. Illinois Chicago 26. Case Western 27. Colorado Denver 28. Massachusetts Amherst 29. South Carolina, SUNY Buffalo 31. Kansas, Alabama 33. SUNY Albany, Cincinnati, VCU Not ranked from last time: Pitt, Medical College of South Carolina In stats it doesn't look like there are a lot of big changes besides Michigan moving to 7, Columbia moving to 10, and Texas A&M moving to 14. In biostats, once again, not that many big changes besides Hopkins moving to being tied for 1 (which makes sense considering how good their placements have been lately) and Penn moving to 12. For both stats and biostats there were a lot of new programs being ranked.

When people talk about programs being applied/theoretical they're usually talking about one of two things: coursework/quals or the research being done by professors in the program. I'm guessing when most people say Harvard is more applied they're talking about the coursework/quals. Harvard is a lot lighter, in this regard, than other top biostat programs where measure theory/more theoretical coursework is required (e.g. UW, Hopkins, UNC). However, that doesn't mean there aren't professors there doing theoretical research (off the top of my head there are a few bayesians who do pretty theoretical work there), just like the programs with more theoretical coursework/quals have professors who do applied work.

Echoing what the others said, you have a shot at every biostats program. Also, if you're interested, you also have a shot at every stats program considering your math background and math gre score (80% is really good for stats programs). So apply to wherever you want to go!

I think there might've been a topic or two in the past asking this question, so it might be worth looking back through the forum for some older perspectives. I was in a similar situation last year and, for me, visiting the programs, talking to current students/professors, and interacting with other accepted students who are going to be your future cohort were the most important parts of the decision process. UW and CMU are both top schools that have good placement records, with professors working in all of your areas of interest, so you really can't go wrong choosing either.

It seems like you already have a good general list at this point. I don't know if you have some substantial research interests at this point, but if you do I'd recommend munging around department websites to see which schools have people working in that area. This would probably be the best way for you at this point to add/remove from your list.

Looks like you have a pretty reasonable list (for phd programs) given your profile. You'd probably have a good shot at most masters program across the board, you can either look into program websites individually or look back through old posts on this forum to see which masters programs give funding (there won't be a lot).

Jesus christ, 88% isn't mediocre for stats, even for internationals (Stanford's average is 82% and they're the only program that requires it). Definitely submit it wherever you apply. No biostat programs really even asks for it, so you'll be way ahead of the pack there.

Given you have pretty much a 4.0 from a top 5 undergrad, your math gre is only really gonna matter at Stanford, so I wouldn't worry about it. Also I'd say to not really worry about the GRE, you just need to score above the 90th percentile in the quant section, which I'm guessing isn't going to be hard for someone with your background (most schools don't care about the other sections as long as you don't really bomb them). Lack of letter writers being able to say you can do good research shouldn't be much of a problem since most applicants don't have a ton of research in general. Also as you can see from the stickied post in this subforum, the sop doesn't really matter a whole lot. You have a good shot at pretty much any stats program, so I'd say apply to where you want to go, and if you're really worried about getting shut out everywhere throw in a few larger programs (like Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas A&M, NC State, Penn State, Minnesota, Purdue, etc.). Since you don't have a whole lot of time left, just prioritize making sure you finish all of your apps on time, and making sure all of your letter writers know when they have to submit letters by.