coffeeintotheorems

Actually, emmm has a point. I had assumed an overall GMAT score of 700 was good because I believe its math section to be far superior to the GRE quant section based on what I've seen from a friend who was studying for it (haven't taken it myself.) Vince, what was the quant score on your GMAT, and what was its percentile? For entrance to a Stats program, you *will* have to take the GRE. Mathematically speaking it's an utterly vapid test, but scoring in the high 700s on the quant section is a basic hoop that every applicant must jump through. With long, proper training you should be able to do it, but that should be much lower on your priority list--you need to take Calculus, Linear Algebra, etc. before even considering applying and prepping for the GRE. This is correct if you wish to have a competitive application for a top school or second-tier school. I'm guessing Vince isn't planning on applying to any school in the top 20. (I mean no offense by this; I'm just being realistic about the rigor of the background you would need to get into a top program.) Real Analysis should not even be on this guy's radar. If you find calculus difficult, real analysis will end you. I guarantee it.

For a PhD in Stats, you absolutely must know your Calculus I-III and basic Linear Algebra inside-out (except maybe line integrals?) I don't know if you need a full Discrete Mathematics course, but you absolutely must know basic counting and combinatorics inside-out. Then you should apply your knowledge by taking basic courses in Probability and Mathematical Statistics--both of which require the aforementioned courses as prerequisites. How you learn these subjects--from a local university or community college, or by self-study--is up to you, but you have to do them. Differential Equations is a traditional topic that complements the Calculus sequence. It's not often explicitly used in Stats and you probably wouldn't need it for applications, but it would at least be an important addition to whatever theory you learn. (An example, for those in the know who might be reading this: there is an analogy between Laplace transforms and the 1:1 correspondence of Moment-generating functions to distribution functions.) "Logic and reasoning" is important, but I'm not 100% sure you need to take a class on it. Your study time would be better spent developing other mathematical skills, and you can learn applied "logic and reasoning" best in the school of hard knocks (i.e. by using common sense.) It would help to know basic symbolic logic, though, e.g. why the contrapositive of a statement is equivalent to it, or why DeMorgan's Laws work on unions and intersections of sets. Sounds like your current GPA and GMAT are pretty solid, and if you have applied work experience that will also be good on the professional end of things.

Math. (I think it says so in my signature.) I doubt I'll get admitted to the Stats program since my interest is computational finance, which can be traversed through either department, but if for some reason I do I'll probably decline.

Brahms Violin Concerto, third movement.

Incidentally, have any of you tried calling the UC Davis Stats department in an attempt to get info? When I called a few times back in December, this is the message I got: "Thank you for calling the UC Davis Department of Statistics. Due to budget cuts, we will only be answering this line once a day." [emphasis added] Anyone else find this funny, maybe a little unnerving? I mean, is there this one guy sitting around waiting to answer the phone once, then when he's done he goes, "Well, I'm finished for the day. Going home!"

Cool story, bro.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you; in fact, I think many people here would be envious of your profile. (I know I am!) With your pedigree, research experience, and work experience, I think many top schools would be interested in you. What should matter more is your recent grades. If need be, you can briefly explain the C+ you got freshman year. I didn't go to Harvard, but I know people who did, and I've heard the nightmare stories about the intro honors Analysis classes, perhaps being used as "weed-out" courses for the faint of heart. Basically, what you should do is 1) make sure you nail the GRE and the subject exam, and 2) apply to as many top programs as you can. In all probability you should get admitted to at least one. Also, it would be good for you to hear the opinions of people here who actually *have* been admitted to top programs. My data, though, come from the following sources: http://www.mathematicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=357&sid=c0b158bcc59f21131b0bac4c8dc0f9a1 http://www.mathematicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=495&sid=c0b158bcc59f21131b0bac4c8dc0f9a1 Basically, you should take a look at the profiles of students there who got into top schools and compare them to yours.

I wrote to a professor of both Statistics and Mathematics at Purdue and have not heard back. For now I have to assume my crippling weakness was my sketchy transcript(s), which cannot be mended. My advice to future college students (should they be reading this, for some reason) is to take time off school if you have motivational problems--this is better than a transcript peppered with F's and W's, which you can never undo. It's scary to think about how competitive the world is becoming. One would think that innovations in, for example, science, engineering, and technology would gradually be improving overall wealth and standard of living. Yet modern evidence seems to be to the contrary: it seems the world is getting harder to live and succeed in. Perhaps this is due to the rise of power of the consummately disciplined Chinese.

According to the Princeton Review's advice for applying to graduate school, "Almost every grad school applicant will receive at least one rejection. While that won't be fun, it's not quite the final act. Call your contact professors in that department and politely express your regret at not being admitted. Ask them if they can point out where your application was weak or give you some suggestions on how you might strengthen your candidacy in the future. This will help if you choose to re-apply the following year." (source: http://www.princeton...-timeline.aspx) Of course I would like to do this; however, the request does not seem standard. Has anyone done this effectively? Are professors even at liberty to give such comments?

I'm currently planning to attend the University of Nowhere Fast.

Good question. Specifically, the idea would be to actually take the past qualifying exams on my own, under timed conditions, and then show the results to the target schools. Perhaps I should have waited until after April 15th to post this, since I'm interested in what others plan to do in this regard. Of course, I may be the only person on here myopic enough to apply to only four programs.

If you don't get into any programs this year, what do you plan to do to make yourself a stronger candidate for next year's applications? I know there are other threads elsewhere on this topic; however, I would like this one to be specific to Mathematics (and Stats.) I have two ideas for myself: 1) Target my studies towards preparing for qualifying exams at specific departments. 2) Get more specific about research interests. In my case, this would entail learning more about stochastic processes, mathematical finance, and the theory and practice of computational mathematics. The purpose of the second idea is to show that I have a good sense of "where I'm going" (academically and professionally), and the purpose of the first is to (further) demonstrate that I am prepared for the basic hurdles of a PhD program. In addition to these arguments, my assumptions are that 1) improving my GRE scores would be a waste of time and do nothing to make me look better, and 2) at this point there is little or nothing I can do to salvage my abysmal GPA (3.0).

Wow, 71 "admits" for 28 spots--that has to represent at least two rounds of offers. Which makes me feel much better about my chances! Unfortunately, the search results here don't seem to have a "Waitlisted-then-admitted" option. Of course, it might be safe to say that last-year's admits in late March-early April are just that. It also might be safe to stop obsessing over probabilities for the next few weeks of my life.

For example, IU's frequently-asked questions page states that their typical incoming class is 25-30 students. Let's say it's 25, then; does that mean they initially make precisely 25 offers and then only make further offers as those from the first round get declined? Or do they make more, say 30-35, and then only make new offers if and when 5-10 of those decline? Any insights into this process would be greatly appreciated.

[whoops, sorry for multiple post; seems I can't delete the duplicate]

That's a good point. However, how would you characterize the "current job market" for people who were planning to apply to strong Mathematics programs? I would think there would be little variability in this area--i.e., these people (we?) wanted to go to grad school anyway, i.e. grad school was our first/only choice, ahead of working in industry straight out of undergrad.

For example, consider top schools: I highly doubt that someone would be working in industry ("the real world"), lose his job last year, and then decide, "Oh, what the heck, I'll go ahead and apply to Princeton's pure Mathematics PhD program." No, it seems that a career in pure mathematics is something you would pursue independently of the economy--that is, NOT as an alternative to having a "real job," i.e. it's not something you're going to decide on a whim or as a back-up plan in case you lose your job. Note: I am not applying to any top-10 pure mathematics programs. Nevertheless, I would think the same principle would still apply to the strong second-tier schools to which I am applying. But it isn't. Or, at least, it appears not to be: yesterday, the graduate secretary at Indiana University Bloomington told me that the number of their applicants both this year and last has been over 200, which is "higher than normal." I intend to eventually get similar information out of the other programs to which I have applied. What do you guys think?