milka49

This is pretty interesting and might be one of the more helpful pieces of information we've gotten here. It's hard to compare person to person without having a lot of information, a decent amount of which is kind of fuzzy and subjective. The professor who mentioned liking my application despite my need for more mathematical maturity said "You seem like a person who has her shit together. We think you'd do really well here." What the heck does that mean? How is that something that comes across in an application, and how do I help others highlight that? So yeah, fuzzy. Meanwhile, you likely submitted pretty much the same application to all of your schools. Your Subject GRE score is higher than I could have ever hoped for, because you are, as far as I can tell, one of the best mathematicians here, and I barely remember what it means for a set to be open anymore. Yet the score is still kind of a boundary case, I think. The one letter writer I had who knew a lot about Stats grad schools (the rest were mathematicians) mentioned that the subject test is only worth taking if you can study and get at least a 90th percentile, and I always questioned that. And indeed, here you are, thus far only getting into the school you submitted the score to. All other factors are likely equal, unless you somehow nailed that personal statement more than others. Obviously, there's a ton that goes into choosing students, especially at programs that take few, but is this some support for the idea that a 71% is worth submitting, generally? I'm on the fence, but it's nice to see a comparison of results for one person. It could be that it was worth submitting for you. Your situation is unique, as you mentioned, and your performance took a hit over time in undergrad for reasons out of your control. However, you did take that test after graduating (well I guess not technically) and still did reasonably well. Perhaps that was more support for your story, because it was a display of not completely falling apart over time. You struggled towards the end of college, but you picked yourself up and did well enough on this test after struggling. Meanwhile, the other schools may think you're making excuses. I don't know what the thought processes are, but for what it's worth, I'm surprised they didn't give you a shot at those other schools, though it looks like UCSD is a really solid choice. Especially since they did give you the shot so quickly. I'd feel pretty loyal to them for that. And that money!

Undergrad Institution: top 10 national liberal arts college Major(s): Pure math Minor(s): technically environmental studies GPA: 3.48 (and actually a school that accepted me commented on how they liked my undergraduate school's grading policy, because we actively fight grade inflation) Type of Student: Domestic White Woman GRE General Test: Q: 167 V: 165 W: 6.0 GRE Subject Test in Mathematics: nope TOEFL Score: NA Grad Institution: NA Concentration: GPA: Programs Applying: Statistics PhD Research Experience: REU, paper to be published, talk at JMM Awards/Honors/Recognitions: not much Pertinent Activities or Jobs: worked in healthcare with some minor focus on reporting/stats for two years post-college Letters of Recommendation: 3 undergrad professors, 2 whom I taught for, and my REU advisor Any Miscellaneous Points that Might Help: Applying to Where: University of Minnesota - Admitted first round with TA offer and first year scholarship University of Wisconsin Madison - Rejected first round Ohio State University - Admitted probably second round or so University of Michigan - waitlisted Rutgers University - pretty sure they just lost my application To be honest, I was expecting to get into 0 or 1 places. I know my letter writers wrote phenomenal statements because I picked people I did really good work with, but my GPA is just meh and my test scores are good but not anything that I think matters much. And I didn't even take the subject test. Professors whom I've had the chance to talk with noted that I might need some catch up with Math, but they also said they really liked my application. I am still wondering what specifics they liked, because I would love to pass that information along to potentially ease some fears. I guess it all comes down to fit and potential.

I don't have great tips for the quant section, since I majored in Math and pretty much was offended by the thought of even trying on that part, but my vocabulary is only slightly more impressive than, well, I won't bring politics into this. Having a limited vocabulary hurts a lot in the Verbal section. I'm convinced you can improve drastically just by learning more words. The best way to do that, as far as I can tell, is by downloading the Magoosh app for your phone. I studied words probably about 5 hours a week for a month and raised my Verbal score from a 155 to a 165. I also took a practice test, clearly, since I had a comparison. If you're concerned, take as many as possible. I think you can get a couple free ones from ETS, and Kaplan and Princeton Review probably have more as well! I got a 6 on the Writing. Honestly, I think most of that is because I'm a trained mathematician. My writing isn't too interesting, but it's generally clear and organized. I threw some Magoosh words up in it, and I think those two things put together did it (fancy words + structured writing = 6). I also relaxed a lot the night before. I read Hyperbole and a Half and did no homework. So, in sum: Writing is improved by having structure and fancy words. Sentence complexity/variation probably helps too. Math, not sure, but you can get free problems sent to your email. Do that. Verbal: Get the Magoosh app. Everything: practice. Take all the practice tests. Read about common pitfalls and trick answers. Practice even more.

I'm pretty sure this alone raised my Verbal score 10 points. I took a practice test, got a 155, got the app, studied words for a month in the bus (so probably 3-4 hours a week), took the actual test, and got a 165. I LOOOOOVE that app.

This is also a great idea! If you don't have much of the cheat food around, you won't eat it. In other words, you just have to have willpower at the grocery store. But if you have absolutely no goodies lying around, then you'll go nuts and order bad food for delivery or something. Another trick, since sometimes the snack packs are expensive, is to divide out the goodies once you get them in little sandwich bags that you can reuse. As long as you seal them tight, they stay good, and I've found this to be a better bang for your buck. I've never actually done this with chips, but I do with cookies, and it usually keeps me from eating an entire sleeve and instead I just eat two. Okay sometimes four.

That makes like 50 times more sense, given s/he currently lives there and mentioned the low cost transition. I have UW Madison on the brain (live here and applied there too). Whoops!

I know absolutely nothing about the actual programs, but, since you haven't gotten a response back yet and I DO know a lot about the institutions/cities, I figured I could add a bit of info. You're right about San Francisco being cool (and expensive)! It's typical to pay 500 to 1000 dollars on rent a month in Madison, depending on number of roommates and quality of living space. On the high end, you could pay $2000 to live on State Street by yourself. Meanwhile, you might spend that to live in an actual dump with a couple roommates in SF. What does your funding/financial situation look like? SF is a much cooler city, in my opinion (I've lived in Madison for the past couple years, but I've never lived in SF, just visited). But, this is just my opinion, and I can see that Madison has things to offer. Their outdoors culture is great, and their lakes are beautiful. Their food is delicious (though their ethnic food is, on the whole, decidedly not). Surprisingly, their culture (theater, museums) isn't half bad, but it doesn't compare to your actual cities, and certainly not San Francisco. The UW community can be cut throat, but, then again, midwest nice is a thing. On the whole, I find midwesterners to be super friendly. I don't know about the exact communities you'll be working with, but I don't know if anyone on here is familiar at all with the exact departments you mentioned. I'm generally a fan of smaller, close-knit communities, so long as the members are well-respected in their fields. I went to a small liberal arts college with well-respected alumni and faculty. Would you be able to research with big names at UW? Even if they don't have the super specifics you're looking for, you can always do your own research, but definitely having the actual faculty researching in areas of interest to you is more helpful. On the whole, I think if you can make UW work, it seems better. In general, it's a very well-respected institution, so you'll have better name recognition and access to more of the country's top minds cross-discipline. BUT, if your email back says "Nah, we don't offer what you're looking for in terms of genomics. You can't really pursue that here" then I think UW is a no go. But, in terms of general reputation, cost of living, and general community, I'd lean towards UW, and I love UCSF and San Francisco! One last note: I know people like to downplay weather, and I, like any good northerner, like to poke fun at people who aren't from the northeast or upper midwest. But I'm being serious. Will you be able to handle and enjoy the cold? Have you experienced day after day after day of sub zero temperatures? January and February can be awful in Madison, especially if you're a person who isn't used to it. I spent the bulk of my time pre-Madison in Boston and Cleveland, and yet I'd never really understood the feeling of literally body pain that can occur when you go out in the cold. You breathe in -20 air and your body just hurts. I just don't go outside without wearing 45 layers. If you aren't familiar with this, or even if you are, is this something you want to deal with? If the two are actually straight up tied and you aren't feeling the bad weather, go to San Francisco.

Nah. I got a B- in linear algebra and will be heading to a Stats PhD top 20 program in the fall. If you're interested, take Differential Equations, which is basically applied linear algebra anyways. More important than your grades is your research potential. Do research, and have a letter writer who can speak to your potential. Make good connections with professors, and be able to argue why you'd be a good fit at a potential program (back it up with letters and research experience!) Don't stress the grades. That one B- is no huge problem. This coming from a fellow linear B- earner

I just went through the application process and applied to 5 (very risky!) schools. They were all of the sameish type (seriously, I straight up applied to all Big 10 schools). I've found that there's no predicting what's a safety and what's a reach. At least, there's very little predicting. A lot depends on fit. Is there a professor whose research catches your eye? Reach out before applying! Get your name on his/her radar. That might get you in. Scores and grades matter, but fit matters more. Research experience matters even more, and letters of recommendation may matter most. If you can say "I want to go here because this person does this research, and I like that research and here's proof I've done that from my SOP and my profs' letters of rec" you'll be a lot more appealing than someone who says "I want to go here because this is the best place and I have a 3.96 and a 338 GRE. Research? What's that? I just study all day." Long story short: Find a place with good opportunities for you. You have the numbers and research experience to back up an application to pretty much any top 30 program. Just argue that you'd be a good fit and get good letters from professors. If possible, have at least one outside your school.

Take a second and maybe even third semester of Analysis. You look fine but could stand some more math. Maybe some probability theory could help too. Don't stress the linear grade too much. I got a B- in it too, and it was the single biggest stress factor for me. My GPA (inside major and out) was a 3.5. Nothing amazing, though it was from a very very solid undergrad institution. Just try to push yourself and get a good math background, and get good letters of rec! Those help more than anybody realizes. I figured I'd not get into any place I applied and was pleasantly surprised when I got my first acceptance. My transcript is full of Bs.

Assuming you are an otherwise healthy person with just some excess body fat (i.e. you are a person capable of moving relatively pain-free), one of the most effective ways to lose weight is by short bursts of high intensity workouts. You need to couple this with weight training and proper diet, but you don't need to spend huge numbers of hours in the gym. Something like 2-3 hours a week (5-6 visits for about 20-30 minutes each) is enough. Here's what you can do: Three times a week, with alternating days, do full body weight training. Do whatever exercises you'd like, as long as you're fitting in time for core/back, legs, and arms/chest. Two to three times, do alternating walking/jogging and full out sprinting. Start out with low repetitions (maybe just 6 cycles) and work up to ~15. Just do 30 seconds of each, so start out walking (briskly!) 30 seconds, then sprint 30 seconds, and repeat 5 more times. Eventually jog 30 seconds, then sprint 30 seconds, and repeat 12 to 15 times. Couple this with a lowish carb and high fat and protein diet. I find long workouts to be somewhat therapeutic sometimes, but since this thread started touching on fat burning, and we all could always stand to have more time on our hands, I figured I'd add the ideas for effective and efficient fat burning.