Jump to content

Robbentheking

Members
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Robbentheking

  1. I've done a good amount of research on masters programs. It seemed to me like Chicago was the best for PhD preparation in the country, hands down. I think Harvard and Stanford may be better for industry, both based on name recognition and the focus of the programs. Stanford I recall labels their program as a 'terminal masters' and specifically stresses that it is rare for masters students to obtain admission to the PhD program. Chicago seemed a lot more flexible/theory orientated. They've also taken a couple kids from the masters program as PhD candidates the past few years. Just a couple of data points.

    I think Harvard was only a year long program? That probably isn't too helpful for you, as won't you application won't have substantially changed by next fall. Think about recommendations...you can't expect someone to write you a great rec after being in their class for 2 months.

    To be honest though, I don't know anything about theoretical machine learning. Maybe you should be in a certain place just based on that interest. If it's going to be CS heavy, maybe you should be looking at school with a good CS department as well? Chicago doesn't really fit the bill there, as far as I know.

  2. 22 minutes ago, ashny said:

    Thank you, that gives me hope then as I have always been bad at math - even in high school.  However, if this is the case, then it means that with enough practice, I can get a competitive score, even though my mind is bad at figuring out math problems?

    Well it depends on what a competitive score is for you, where you are now, how much will power you have, and how much time you have. If you were bad at math in high school, you probably have some work cut out for you. Just practice practice practice. There's tons of advice on this forum and elsewhere, but the biggest key is to figure out how to make math practice not feel like a chore. The best mathematicians in the world do math because it's fun for them. They would never be where they were if they dreaded sitting down to do math. Think of the quant section as a puzzle solving section. 

    For the verbal, you should be okay if you read a fair amount already. But as another user mentioned, I found that making flash cards on my phone of the strange vocab words and just studying them whenever I was on the bus or had an odd few minutes really helped get a few extra points out. 

  3. 9 minutes ago, ashny said:

    My impression is that you either have to be good at Math or not and that not all kinds of math problems can be learned. If I am wrong, then maybe I can take a few years off to study maths and compete with younger students but at my age it would not be worth spending years on learning math! 

     

    The math on the GRE is definitely learnable, but certainly someone who hasn't had to engage in this type of thinking in decades would have to study much longer to master the material. 

  4. 18 minutes ago, ashny said:

    However, for non-math grad programs like the one I am applying for, these tests do more harm than good and shut candidates with good potential out. This board is full of younger applicants too who are academically bright, have high GPA's but are just not good at standardized tests. In these cases too there is no correlation between their ability and potential to succeed in their grad school courses, especially since the type of content tested in the GRE is often different from what they are required to do in the grad school courses they are applying for.

    Granted the math example is not typical, but there's obviously some correlation. As you noted above, the verbal section sucks, but it doesn't suck to the degree that there are tons of people getting 140s who could walk into the best history departments in the country and be stars from day one. The question is whether the level of correlation is acceptable, and the answer varies from program to program. What you're saying makes sense to me if you are in a field where the correlation is low, but then you should also be pointing fingers at the adcoms. I've read some crazy stuff about how little professors know about the test. That seems like as big of a problem as the test itself. 

  5. I think this is definitely worth talking about, but I don't think it's this is easily remedied. Maybe you know more about this type of thing, but it doesn't seem trivial to me to come up with a test that reflects pure learning potential and cannot be studied for. I suspect that the main problems for older test takers are not being around the material for years and not having time to prepare. 

    It's also worth noting that in some cases, the learned knowledge is, if not directly important, highly correlated with important skills. For example, in mathematics/statistics, if you want to go to a top program and can't get near a 170 on the quant section, there are definitely some red flags that are raised, even though gre math has nothing to do with the math you'll end up doing in a grad program. 

    Also, before you declare the system to be discriminatory, you should really do/find a study about whether or not adcoms really take gre scores at face value, i.e. hold all applicants to the same standards. After some of the reading I've done, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, but considering that it's no too hard to read up on the shortcomings of the test, it's something that would have to be verified. 

    Regardless, I wish you all the best. The test is a pain in the ass for us college kids, so I can only imagine how much of challenge it is for you. 

  6. I just want to add that I have a friend from China who's told me that the dynamic in China is very different from the US. In his experience, undergrad comes with an insane amount of competition, while grad school isn't really that crazy because most of the smart kids go to America to continue their studies. 

    Those university rankings are based on a lot of factors and I think it's safe to say better university ranking does not imply math undergrads know their material better. Some of these Chinese unis seem like good counterexamples. 

  7. That does seem odd to me too.

    I think the verbal score could actually be useful information even for math programs if it were structured differently. Reading comprehension is an important skill and some of questions are basically logic tests that I'd want all my math/econ/cs grad students to be able to get 95% of the time in a vacuum. The problem is, right now, it's possible to have outstanding reading comprehension/logic skills but get like a 160 just because you didn't take the time to cram 500 words into your short term memory, or conversely, to get like 165 with inferior verbal skills and good short term memory.

    As for your score, I'm just guessing here, but as you say, 85th percentile doesn't seem disastrous at all. Honestly though, I would expect it to be one of the lowest scores an accepted student at a place like MIT would get. I'll text my buddy who I referred to earlier.

    What does your math history look like? That would definitely help contextualize your score. 

  8. I'm just an applicant as well, but my impression from reading through these forums is that for someone applying to masters programs, your profile is quite competitive. I guess having Real Analysis on your transcript, or any sort of proof based math, would be ideal, but your more interested in applied statistics anyway. My impression is that 168Q is more than sufficient for master programs. I wouldn't worry about that.

    Obviously you've basically picked all the best programs here, but I'd like to think you'll find success somewhere on the list. I think I read somewhere that Columbia's MS really isn't hard to get into.

    As always, it would be cool if one of the people that actually knows what they're talking about would pipe up. I think in general there are a lot more profile evlauations for PhD on here, making it a bit harder for MS applicants to get a handle on where they stand.

  9. On 10/18/2016 at 4:13 PM, Wizardandwitch said:

    This post helped me a lot. Made an account especially to post my experience. Alas it's not a very positive one. Just gave the gre yesterday and these were my practice scores. I had read somewhere that you should leave all your practice tests till the last few days of prep.  And that is what I did. So my first test starts from 6 days before the test till the final day. 

    Day 1: Q-164 V-152. 316. ETS-1(satisfied with want but not with verbal)

    Day 2:Q-168 V-157.  325. kaplan(very happy with quant and satisfied with verbal-but read everywhere that the Kaplan test was easy so didn't get my hopes up too high) 

    Day 3: Q-159 V-158.  317. Manhattan prep(shocked and disappointed by quant but satisfied with verbal) 

    Day 4: Q-161 V-151. 312. ETS-2(the lowest combined score so was a little disappointed) 

    Day 5: Q-161 V-158. 319. Manhattan prep(got higher than the previous day so felt better but not happy with my quant score) 

    Day 6:Was very tensed about math because I'm applying to engineering programs. And my target was around 164. So thought would only concentrate on math for the next 2  days. 

    Q-164 Princeton review

    Day 7- Q-159 Manhattan prep( but know that Manhattan quant is pretty hard so wasn't too disappointed) 

    Actual gre: Q-158!!! V-157 

    Was very angry with my math score. I got less than even the Manhattan prep tests. The first section I got was quant but was weirdly difficult and not expected for the first section. The second and third sections of quant were much easier.  And the programs I am applying to will definitely not accept this quant score. So writing it again after my semester exams :/.

     

     

     

     

    next time don't study so much right before the test. I took like 5 practice tests in my prep and noticed that the single most important factor in determining my performance was being rested and alert

  10. 6 hours ago, arima said:

    You have a solid record. The lack of a math subject test is problematic for the top departments. Madison is a really good choice for a masters given how respected the department is. In terms of other masters programs, did you look at Columbia's? The website states that its MA is for preparing people for doctoral studies: "The Statistics Department offers a flexible on campus M.A. program designed for students preparing for professional positions or for doctoral programs in statistics 

    Thanks for the ideas. I hadn't looked at the masters programs at either of those departments yet. I should have done more research before posting. I had just looked at master programs at some of the top departments and was kind of surprised the orientation was so professional

  11. 4 hours ago, statbiostat2017 said:

    Does going to Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota corner you out of academia? I'm not familiar with how academic jobs go

    Well idk really. I sort of hate the phrasing I used here now that I read it again. I don't mean to insinuate that Michigan for example is 'any old offer,' as it seems to be a very strong department with many people much smarter than me. What I'm trying to get at is I'm not just going to take a PhD offer for the sake of taking one, especially if I can get into a really good masters program and fill some of the holes in my profile in the next couple years. To be honest, I don't really know if the programs I mentioned would put me in a relatively tough spot in terms of academic placement or what the cutoff is for 'any old offer' is; it's sort of all part of my question. I've done a bit of research by just randomly looking at younger faculty profiles at schools and it would be wrong to say that all of the faculty come from top 5 programs. That being said, places like Stanford and Berkeley pop up quite a lot, especially in say the top 15 departments. 'Cornering out' is a strong phrase and again was probably poor word choice, but going to a top department seems like the path of least resistance, unless people outside of this top tier are just not as interested in academic careers on average. This is also coming from a bit of reading I've done on these forums.

    I like to think that if you worked with really great faculty at a second tier department and produce good research you shouldn't have too much trouble getting a job, but who knows.

  12. Hi guys,

    I've been reading through these forums for the past couple months in order to get a feel for the admissions process etc. and have learned a lot, but I guess it'd be nice to have a bit of input on my personal situation. I'm a senior studying math and am interested in theoretical statistics and probability theory. It's pretty important to me that I keep the door to academia very much open and I've read that academic placement can get really hard outside of the top tier. With that in mind, I wonder if my best option would be to focus largely on applying to masters programs to improve my profile. The issue with this that I find is that, although I haven't done exhaustive research, it seems most masters programs are very much professionally oriented, which really isn't what I'm looking for. The only ones that I have found that I really like are Chicago and Harvard, which I guess are possibilities for me, but are very competitive obviously. Anyway, I'll put my profile and current ideas for schools below, and would be curious to hear any input/advice anyone has to give, especially from any faculty. Thanks!

    Undergrad: Ivy 

    Majors: Mathematics, German

    GPA: 3.88 overall, 3.90 Math, 3.87 German

    Honors/ Awards: classic bs like dean's list, a few German department awards. (I actually got "Highest Honors" in my German major for an A on my senior thesis, for whatever that's worth)

    Type of student: domestic male

    GRE: Verbal 170, Quantitative 167, Writing 4.5

    Math GRE: am not taking it... just didn't have the time to prepare for the regular gre, work full time, and review all that stuff well enough to expect a good score.

    Relevant Courses: Integral Calc (A+), Multi Variable (A), Linear Algebra (A+), Intro to Proofs (A), Abstract Algebra I (A-), Real Analysis I (A), Abstract Algebra II (A), Real Analysis II (A), Calc. Based Probability (A+), Intro to PDEs (A+), Complex Analysis (A), Topology (grad course) (A-).

    Research: None in math or statistics. I have a 40 page senior thesis in german and currently am doing an extended internship in research and development at an electronics firm, but it's largely physics based with a smattering of calculus involved. I don't think either of these will help me too much.

    Letters:

    -analysis professor who I had for two semesters 

    -algebra professor who I had for two semesters

    -topology professor

    first two should be good because they both know me and what i can and can't do very well. third is probably kind of meh

     

    Worries:

    I think they're obvious:

     1) Lack of research, and the reliance on professors I only took classes with for letters that comes with this

     2) no math gre pretty much eliminates me from top tier PhD if my lack of research didn't already

    Thinking of applying:

    Masters: Chicago (first choice), Harvard, .... (any suggestions for non-professionally oriented masters that aren't so competitive? I know I have to do more research here)

    PhD: I guess maybe large departments where I would have research flexibility. I guess I'll apply to places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, but again, I'm cautious of cornering myself out of academia by just accepting any old offer.

     

     

     

     

     

  13. @PoliticalOrder

     

    I haven't really done any research, but from personal experience and word of mouth:

    The amount of meals doesn't matter insofar as you are getting the same amount of calaories. For me personally though, trying to combine two or even three meals into one huge meal results in me eating less calories per day on average I think. On the flip side, a lot of athletes try to eat throughout the day to get more calories in their system during intense weight training. You just have to pay attention to your body.

  14. @TakeruK

    Well, I may be deemphaisizing research a bit on some subscious level just as an ego boost, but what I've written above is a pretty decent respresentation of what I've heard in my math department.

    With regards to the mathematical ceiling, I think it can really have a more dynamic definition. Math can get really hard and no matter who you are, you are going to get to points where you just really need to like math enough to put in the time and grind through the rough patch. The degree to which you are willing to sacrifice for the subject is part of your ceiling I think, and I think most professors would agree to that. Mathematical ceiling is a phrase that is casually thrown around a lot that is actually pretty deep imo.

    In general, I'm wary of people who fall cleanly on either  side of the fixed intelligence vs. growth mindset debate. I think experience shapes all of his greatly on everything from aparent ability to desire to learn something, but the idea that there aren't people with inherent advantages in certain areas doesn't make much sense to me. Forgive me if I sound really stupid because I'm reaching far out of my field, but I'm not sure I understand how humans fit into the evolutionary framework if intelligence is just something we all acquire during our lifetimes.

  15. @TakeruK

    First off, thank you for taking the time to write this long and clearly well thought out post.

    While I'm aware of the fact that getting a recommendation from someone who only a taught me in a course is not ideal, I would like to say that especially in math, and to a lesser in statistics, this is not totally uncommon. Certainly in math, no one outside of the true rising stars knows anywhere near enough as an undergraduate participate in meaningful research. In this sense, one of the better measures that grad schools have of future research potential is simply to try and make sure a student is not close to reaching his or her mathematical 'ceiling'. In this sense, professors one has had a course with are really not the worst evaluators. Certainly research need not be meaningful to give an indication about research potential, but I clearly recall going to a prospective math major QandA session when I was a sophomore whereby someone asked about how to get involved in undergrad research. One of the professors on the panel, one who was subsequently fired for his lack of teaching ability but almost immediately picked up by UChicago becasue he was a brilliant researcher, gave the following answer: 'Don't waste your time with research as an undergrad. You just don't know enough. The best thing you can do to prepare for grad school is pick up a text book during the summer and try to do all the problems'. This answer struck me as ridiculous at the time, but other, more level headed professors I've asked about this answer have pretty much agreed. Coming from a math background, my interests in stats are almost totally theoretical and intersect heavily with pure math. I do not have any research experience in this field and while it'd be nice to have some, I'm not killing myself over this, especially because half of me really thinks a masters program would be best for me right now anyway for a bunch of reasons only partially intersecting with research. I've done what can easily be spun as descriptive statistics research in the bit of professional experience I have, but haven't gotten a recommendation from a previous employer because I just don't think that would at all be helpful in evaluating my research potential in the topics I'm interested in.

    The reason for my concern about asking the topology professor follows largely from my comment about 'mathematical ceiling.' I think the way in which a letter from a professor can be helpful is by giving a vote of approval that the ceiling isn't in sight and that the student has an inquisitive mind and a love for mathematics that takes his or her study to a somewhat extra curricular level, and I'm really not sure doing mediocrely in a class really encourages the professor to give his seal of approval that I will be able to tackle anything thrown at me in the future. You can't push the mathematics further if you don't have a full grasp of the existing knowledge.

    As for German, I did write a pretty significant senior thesis and could get a recommendation from my advisor. Mostly, I just wanted to include a letter from someone who knows me well through the German department because it's something I spent if not half, a significant part of my time on in undergrad; it's a big part of who I am as a student and I just feel like even though it's totally irrelevant in the fields I'm interested in, I want to put my full self on my applications.

     

     

     

     

     

  16. 1 hour ago, avflinsch said:

    I see that your location is Germany, if you are applying to US (or non German) schools, then I would go for a LOR from one of your German professors (assuming that the other 2 were from the math department), Doing it this way, you show yourself to be proficient in multiple areas, and that you are more than just a math geek.

    if you are staying in Germany, then the A- from the topology professor might be a better option, the professor knows you, and would be able to write a better letter on your behalf.

    BTW - where in Germany? My daughter was taking political science classes in Kassel over the summer, and is considering going back to Germany for her PhD.

    I'm a US international, went to school in the US and will be applying to US schools; I'm just working in Germany currently. I actually intend to ask the head of the German department back home to write a rec for me, but I was thinking of making this a fourth rec. It should actually be a very good rec because she really likes me and has openly pushed for me to get somewhat undeserved department awards in the past, but because I'm applying to a quanitative field, I want to make sure I fill my required recs with people that actually have an understanding of what it takes to do grad level work in a quanitative field.

    I'm in Berlin. I would consider staying here, but to be honest I sort of miss the US and speaking English all the time. It's just a bit easier haha

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use