edward130603

i think having an A- for analysis is much better than not having analysis on your transcript

i think having an A- for analysis is much better than not having analysis on your transcript

i think having an A- for analysis is much better than not having analysis on your transcript

I don't think you're a troll. I just think you have a demonstrated record, based on your post history and this conversation, of failing to apply basic analytical reasoning skills.
To be clear, I care about, as you put it, society and justice as well. We may even share the same views on many such issues. But it's evident that your reasons for your views are fundamentally flawed and require rethinking. If you really care about these issues, I would suggest that you relearn some of the basics of logic and argumentation before you engage with other people further. I mean this sincerely; these skills would help you immensely in many aspects of life and make people more receptive to your claims.
Regarding your first bullet point: Again, I am not making the normative claim that students should submit their scores. I am refuting your descriptive claim that submitting very strong math subject GRE scores can never improve applicants' chances of admission. Please understand this crucial distinction before you respond. Here, I'll even help you out with another example.
Descriptive Claim: If I pick up the stack of $10,000 that someone else left on the sidewalk, I will have improved my financial situation.
Normative Claim: I should not pick up the stack of $10,000 because it doesn't belong to me.
Both of these statements can be simultaneously true. The issue is that the OP was asking a descriptive question. The question was whether submitting a math subject GRE score can improve one's chances of admission. That is entirely separate from the normative question of whether she should submit her math subject GRE score. You're attempting to support your descriptive claim that submitting a math subject GRE score doesn't help at Berkeley or Washington with a prescriptive argument. That's just poor logic.
Regarding your second bullet point: The evidence to support my position that there are some scenarios where a very strong math subject GRE score can benefit an applicant's chances of admission at Berkeley and Washington is twofold. First is the fact that both of these programs explicitly say that they will accept an applicant's math subject GRE score. Why would they say this if the math subject GRE score can only hurt applicants' chances of admission? You're seriously telling us that these programs are inviting applicants to submit these scores so that they can at best hurt their own chances of admission? Second is the fact that it is well-known that certain types of applicants would benefit from demonstrating some level of mathematical proficiency through the math subject GRE. These include applicants who haven't taken rigorous math courses in college, applicants who believe that their grades in math classes are not reflective of their mathematical abilities, and international applicants. This is well-known and has been discussed throughout this forum, so I hope I don't need to provide all of the links here. Do you know how to search for things? I ask because a while back you claimed out of nowhere that Stanford receives 400-500 Ph.D. applications each year when a simple search of Stanford's own website shows that they receive about 120 Ph.D. applications each year. If you need help, please let me know so that I can facilitate this process for you. Again, I mean this sincerely. I would genuinely be happy to help if you need it because I think it would benefit the level of discourse here.
Regarding your third bullet point: I am indeed aware of this fact. It is hardly relevant. If you think that programs can't simultaneously look for a diverse student body/conduct holistic admissions and consider standardized test scores that are known to correlate with race and gender, then I guess you somehow haven't heard of practically every four-year college in the United States that has a household name. Is there some particular reason that colleges are able to consider standardized test scores while conducting holistic admissions but statistics Ph.D. programs can't?
I'm going to take insert_name_here's advice and stop here. If you manage to come up with an actually insightful response, then maybe I'll continue this conversation. But I'm not holding my breath.

This is the probability someone scores better than you on all three sections. I think you can use that as a performance metric, but it is not a percentile (i.e. the top 5.3382% interpretation is not valid).
We can take another overall metric of performance to be the sum of the percentiles. Given your assumption, the three percentiles are i.i.d. Uniform (0,1) random variables, so their sum has the Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3. Using your example, the sum of the percentiles is 186/100, which is the 75.4 percentile for Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3.
In reality, the three scores are quite correlated due to other factors such as time spent studying, test-taking ability, etc.

This is the probability someone scores better than you on all three sections. I think you can use that as a performance metric, but it is not a percentile (i.e. the top 5.3382% interpretation is not valid).
We can take another overall metric of performance to be the sum of the percentiles. Given your assumption, the three percentiles are i.i.d. Uniform (0,1) random variables, so their sum has the Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3. Using your example, the sum of the percentiles is 186/100, which is the 75.4 percentile for Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3.
In reality, the three scores are quite correlated due to other factors such as time spent studying, test-taking ability, etc.

This is the probability someone scores better than you on all three sections. I think you can use that as a performance metric, but it is not a percentile (i.e. the top 5.3382% interpretation is not valid).
We can take another overall metric of performance to be the sum of the percentiles. Given your assumption, the three percentiles are i.i.d. Uniform (0,1) random variables, so their sum has the Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3. Using your example, the sum of the percentiles is 186/100, which is the 75.4 percentile for Irwin-Hall distribution with n=3.
In reality, the three scores are quite correlated due to other factors such as time spent studying, test-taking ability, etc.

Out of the four you listed, I think calc3 and real analysis are the most important. Generally real analysis is done after finishing the calc sequence. It's not that analysis really needs the material in calc 3 but more that most people find analysis kinda hard so taking more math classes beforehand helps. I'm going to guess the linear algebra class you took was not proof-based so, having a proof-based algebra class would also be more important. You should be able to send the fall transcript to schools on time assuming semester ends some time in December.
That said... I think you can get into some pretty good stat/biostat phd programs with good grades in fall math classes. But be careful about taking 3-4 math classes in a single semester. I was planning to take 3 math classes my senior fall (real analysis, complex analysis, and numerical analysis) before the professor for complex emailed me to tell me I should drop. In hindsight, he was right because I probably would have collapsed with the workload for those three classes alone.
 

not sure about that. i'd assume it helps but i also know of some people who did very well in master's program at top school but still weren't admitted to the phd 

Assuming you get your grades around mid-late December, your initial application probably won't have your fall grades, but most schools accept an update so you can send that in as soon as you get your grades.
You are probably competitive for any master's program (and I think lower top 10 phd programs too with a solid gre/grade in analysis).

but is your goal to get a phd or to get hypsm on your resume
people applying for master's mostly won't even have a single real analysis class, while op has take 2 and gotten A+s
I think this profile looks pretty good, but at this point I'm just curious how grade inflation is at Canadian schools. OP as well as the other post on front page from @statscan9 (also Canadian) both have nearly perfect GPAs, so either they are both truly exceptional students, or schools hand out free A's in Canada?

Edit: Fixed second to last sentence.
 
I am also applying to Fall 2018 Statistics Ph.D. programs so I am not an expert, but I would hope you would get in a PhD program somewhere since I am probably a similar level of applicant.  Duke has admission stats on their Phd program here: https://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/statistical-science-phd-admissions-and-enrollment-statistics.  Duke, UNC, and NC State are pretty competitive schools, and I assume Carnegie Mellon would be as well.   I would drop the masters applications and add a few middle tier Phd programs (Florida State, South Carolina), unless you have a specific reason to apply to WVU and Depaul.  I would check to see if any of those schools require the GRE Math Subject Test (I know Duke and VT don't), and avoid programs that require it since it is a very difficult exam even for math majors. From what I have read some programs will offer rejected PhD applicants acceptance to their masters program. Do you know what you want to do with a PhD in statistics or what you want to specialize in (biostat, Bayesian, applied, theoretical etc)? 

The grade inflation situation in canada is similar to the states in the sense that math departments inflate grades while others dont. I dont think you can label the entire country as being one or the other.

@insert_name_here I can't speak for OP since I don't know what school he attends but at my school we have less grade inflation than at US schools so our GPA has to reflect that. We actually get grades in terms of percentages, and then those are converted into GPA, roughly as follows: 50-60% is a D, 60-70% is a C, 70-80% is a B, 80-90% is an A, 90-100% is an A+. The average grade for almost all of our classes is between 60% and 65% (so a C). My marks (virtually all A+, with an actual average of 96.5%) put me in the top 2-3 of my class for the Statistics and Actuarial Science department (~200 undergrads in my year). My supervisor (who knows the top marks) says I'm likely going to win the award handed out at graduation for highest graduating average, so I might actually be the top student. We definitely don't just hand out marks here, in fact our averages are lower than what most US averages are from what I understand. 

Generally, completing a Masters before a PhD does not significantly reduce the length of the PhD program. Whether any PhD program requirements will be waived will depend on each PhD program. I'm not in Statistics, but the range in my field varies from reducing the PhD course requirements between 0-1.5 semesters (i.e 0-0.75 years). 
However, as you may already know, the part that takes the longest is not the coursework, but the research! Having experience with research in a Masters program can help  (e.g. if you do a PhD project closely related to your Masters work, you will already have a lot of the background reading etc. done). A Masters program can also help you adjust to the time management and help you develop valuable research skills that could make your PhD go faster than someone who enters directly from an undergrad degree. That said, in your case, since you will be using a Masters program to help you get caught up in Statistics compared to those who might be entering directly, you may not end up that far ahead of direct-entry students.
In your case, I think you potentially have another option. Can you also get a major (or at least a minor) in Statistics, extending the length of your undergrad degree as necessary? I am not sure what your school rules are but in Canada, this is very typical for students who change/alter interests after their 2nd year. It might be cheaper to continue on your BS degree for a 5th and 6th year instead of enrolling as a Masters student. But I know that at some schools, you aren't allowed to stay this long. 

grades in the math classes? (analysis, algebra, prob, and calcs)

I think so. If you barely prepared for the test, you should not too painfully be able to increase the quant a few valuable points. 
Getting into a PhD at "top schools" may be challenging depending on your definition of top schools, but I think you have a place somewhere for sure. 

u sure a phd in stat is what you really need for that type of a job?

u sure a phd in stat is what you really need for that type of a job?

Duke is located close to NC's Research Triangle Park region, which has companies like IBM and Cisco. As for the other two, which employer wouldn't want a more serious degree?

I'm assuming that you mean UNC for stats not biostat, may help to clarify that for folks that want to weigh in on UNC, especially since their biostat is a bit more prestigious.  I can only comment on NCSU...
NCSU:  I visited here and found that their placements were heavily geared toward industry.  Some of the students (~15 of 130) are even funded by graduate internship training (GIT) programs while they're studying, mostly by triangle area companies.  NCSU would not provide me with a complete placement list, just said what companies they had placed people into.  This is a bad sign, when schools are proud of their placements they post this info publicly, refusing to provide a list to admitted students is a red flag for me.  Further the NRC data (2006) is missing, but it indicates that 60%+ are going into industry.
Their industry placements are very good, especially strong with the research triangle companies, but I think it's fair to say that they're not placing as many folks into academia.  I'm a student so my opinion on prestige is worthless, but I think their proximity in the USNWR rankings tells you that they're too close to matter.  It will come down to your adviser, work, etc.

Duke is located close to NC's Research Triangle Park region, which has companies like IBM and Cisco. As for the other two, which employer wouldn't want a more serious degree?

Duke is located close to NC's Research Triangle Park region, which has companies like IBM and Cisco. As for the other two, which employer wouldn't want a more serious degree?

I haven't actually done a REU so not too sure about that one, but I know a friend who did one and it was a combination of classes and research. I did the NIH summer program for two summers a few years ago and it is definitely a real research experience, but forgot it's not open to international students. If students are expected to present a poster at the end of the experience, I'd say it's legit (and depending on whether you find anything substantial in the poster, that will go towards a publication). 
Personally, I've been taking "independent study" courses the past 3 semesters that allow me to take 1 less class each semester and use that time towards research (in addition to full-time summers with the same research group). I think building strong connections with research advisor and getting good rec letters from them is a really nice boost to application. When I applied, I had rec letters from research advisor for epidemiology research (worked with ~9 months), advisor for genomics research (worked with ~2 years), and a statistics professor (took 2 classes with). So far, I'm having more success with acceptances at biostatistics programs and statistics programs that aren't as theoretically focused, so perhaps research experiences not in pure stat are less useful if applying to a more traditional statistics school.

My intro probability course used "A First Course in Probability" by Sheldon Ross. Has solutions in the back, and you can find pdfs of it online. Maybe also khan academy.