mcaleste

In my opinion, research fit with your POI is far and away the most relevant criteria. I would go with Michigan, it sounds like you're leaning that way already. 

I got that email as well. I only mentioned one faculty member in my statement of purpose. 

ok seriously. i just checked those people's resumes and i'm now ready for my reject letter.

those people are seriously qualified and there's no way they would look at me. mit seems to be very by the book and seems to only accept one type of student. others might disagree with me. seriously depressing.

i'm now very happy and grateful for the accepts that i have received.

I'm sorry but you really do not deserve to go to Harvard.

Of those schools, I'm confident you'd have a good shot at Penn State. Yale is (very) difficult to get into. I think they prefer that applicants take (and do well in) the math GRE.
I'm not too familiar about the other programs to give you information. 
Regarding the other question, I think it depends on how forgiving committees are with the B+ in Complex Analysis. In my experience and from those I've heard about, it is extremely difficult to crack the top 7, but after that it becomes significantly easier. Letters could make a big difference though. 

@footballman2399
does anyone in stats really care at all about complex analysis? I could imagine some of the techniques for integration might pop up in some proof somewhere, but otherwise it doesn't seem too applicable.

Probability theory can use a lot of complex analysis topics. For example, characteristic functions.

I think at the very top they do care. Depending on what you're learning, there's not too much from even Real Analysis (I) that's helpful in probability. However, it shows one's ability to do theoretical and abstract math, so regardless of whether it's "useful," in terms of a prerequisite, it's useful as a tool for admissions. 
I'm by no means saying the OP doesn't have a shot, but it's not a shoe-in either. That's why I would advise the OP to apply to a few top 7 schools as well as a few (non-Ivies) in the 8-20 range. 

Real analysis will lead one from undergraduate-level coverage of probability to graduate-level coverage and formulation of probability using measure theory. Also, as I said, complex analysis is useful for a number of important probability-based approaches. So, knowing real analysis for theoretical statistics is more than a litmus test of being able to do math for admissions committees, it is necessary for having a firm grasp of a number of theoretical concepts in statistics.

You are good! Go for it, all the best! You are going to get in.

Don't get me wrong, I think the overall profile is strong. However, there are a couple of lower math grades (e.g., C+ in Calc 3), and the overall GPA suggests a couple of lower grades in other courses as well. In addition to the strength of the letters, a lot of @mcaleste's success will depend on the strength and reputation of the "large state school" he attends. If it is a major state flagship (like, say, University of Virginia or similar), then this profile may be enough to get him into a top-tier program. Otherwise, probably not.

Would you, @cyberwulf or @footballman2399 mind elaborating on why @mcaleste isn't a top applicant? He has great grades in upper level math classes and assuming he gets an A in graduate real analysis there is another. Decent GRE scores, research experience which I am assuming will lead to great letters. I have looked at past profiles on this site for a year and mcaleste looks great to me. Just wondering what I am missing

Your profile is pretty similar to mine when I was applying (research experience, grades, etc.). Frankly, I think the list of schools you put is much too top-heavy. I applied to UCLA and Columbia of those schools you listed, and was ultimately waitlisted to UCLA and rejected from Columbia (but accepted for their non-funded MS). As cyberwulf mentioned, you'll want to add in at least a few schools in the 15-25 range. Sometimes results can surprise you (both in good and bad ways).

I don't think it's implausible that you could be admitted to a couple of schools on your list (I would think chances are better at Wisconsin/Columbia/UCLA than CMU/Duke/UW), but I would recommend adding some more places ranked in the 15-25 range as safeties.

I am also a NON CS background, i did my undergrad from India in mechanical engineering, i have 4.5 yrs work experience in software testing, working for two different MNC's. I dont have research experience or any papers published

I am not aiming for top4... It will be really helpful though if someone can give me some names of universities where i have a good chance of getting funding and which will also be a safe category univ for me....

*sigh* it is so frustrating at how much you value school name, ivy prestige, and undergrad rankings for a STEM field PhD. I'm pretty sure most the people in gradcafe or applying in general are astounded that you would turn down 3 top 15 fully funded offers from amazing schools in CS just to impress other people with the name of a prestigious undergrad school. Looking at your list, these are all name brand undergrad schools, but not necessarily even known for strength in CS (Yale?) . Whereas you left off extremely good CS schools whose names don't necessarily impress the average joe (CMU, UIUC, UT-Austin, etc).

And what is so crazy is that you are giving up multiple great offers that anyone in their right mind would kill for to re-apply again to schools that are all complete gambles! Every one of those schools you listed are schools in which everyone hates trying to make guesses about because the variation is so high. I know plenty of people with 4.0 GPAs, 99% on all GRE sections, first author pubs, etc. that get rejected from every one of those schools. As much as you can have a "perfect" application, there is just no guarantee with those schools. It is like someone offering you $10 million now, OR wait 1 year, put in lots of time, money and effort to reapply for a 50% chance at getting $11 million next year.

At least in your last thread you made it sound like you decided that a math PhD was a better fit:


But now you are polling about CS AGAIN so it clearly means you just want to move up a bit higher in the rankings, which again as everyone has told you in that thread and your first thread (), is such a terrible way of picking schools.

It seems like you are asking for advice, ignoring said advice, and then rephrasing the same questions to try and get people to answer in a different way that validates your poor decisions. Obviously you are just going to do whatever you want to do, why keep asking the same question over and over??