statfan

The fundings should be enough to cover your tuition and living costs. These programs are all well-known in the States, and they are different from masters in the States in that they are research-based rather than course-based. The class size is much smaller than that of masters in the States, so professors tend to care more about their students. The master and phd courses are held together rather than separately in the States, so you will also have chance to take several phd courses of your interests.With that said, it is more competitive for you to get into these programs, but once you get in, you will be able to gain meaningful research experience, which will help substantially when you apply to phd later. Unlike course-based masters in the States, which won't help a lot when you apply to phd.

Not much. The major problem of your application is lack of core math courses such as real analysis/advanced calculus, which makes admissions to phd you listed extremely tough. You have decent shots for masters though.

Given your strong GPA and GRE, you might have some shot at some 20-30 range, where they do not put strong emphasize on real analysis. You have the chance to take real analysis during the first year of phd if you are admitted. However, admissions for top schools are competitive, and many applicants have more than one real analysis courses. So, in terms of your math background, you are way behind them. Combining the fact that you have no research experience, it is going to be tough to get into top schools. I suggest you taking an extra year to make up your real analysis courses and gain relevant research experience, and you will be in a much better shape next year.

I am doing statistics master in Canada now with the goal of applying to phd later. I am mainly interested in probability, and there are several professors that I can work with. I'd like to hear your thoughts on choosing my supervisor. One of them is a full professor with phd from western university. He is currently holding some positions (chairs or something), and also serves as an editor for a queueing theory journal. However, he may not have a strong tie to the schools in the States. Another is an assistant professor who just graduated a few years ago from a top 15 phd in the states. He is an incredibly smart guy with research on theoretical probability, and I am sure that he will yield high-quality research in the future. The problem with him is that he is so young that he may not be well-known both in Canada and the States. He may have connection with US faculty though. In terms of my chance of getting into top phd in the States, how would you weight the pros and cons? Whose letter do you think will take on more weight, assuming I produce similar research with both.

GRE is a filter and 157 on quantitative is a red flag given your math background. Also your verbal will cause concerns about your ability to communicate in English. I strongly suggest you retaking the test and shoot for at least 90th percentile for quantitative and 70th percentile for verbal. You have good grades in math courses and you may aim higher (top 20) if you see significant improvement on the GRE. Otherwise, your chances are not even high in lower ranked schools.

Those can be more than offset by your math background and letters.Aside from a handful of top schools which require math gre, you should be fine. I'd say gre verbal is one of the less important factors and you did reasonably well as an international student so don't worry too much.

If you have more analysis courses and obtain good grades from them, then you have a shot at chicago phd. Chicago tends to emphasize a lot on math.

While your gpa is not stellar, you have exellent grades in math/stat courses and substansive math background, which is admission committee care much more than your overall gpa. Your strong letters and related research experience also make you a competitive candidate. I suggest you applying to more higher ranked programs and I think you have a good shot to get into a few.

It would definitely help if you get good grade from it. However, you are still behind the best applicants who have several terms of real analysis plus substantial research experience. My suggestion is to ask profs who know you well to write the letter. Given your profile, I think you are competitive at any masters programs since masters programs generally do not require real analysis.

I am not saying this to discourage you but considering your lack of math preparation and relatively weak recommendation letters, probably all of the schools you listed are gonna be reaches. Getting a high score in MGRE will help but without background in real analysis I suspect it. Also, seeking a letter from a grad student is also not a good idea. IMO, what consists of a great reference is the highlight of your research potential. Conversely, letters only saying you did well in class may end up hurting you. I think you'd be better off applying next year, making up the gap in real analysis and hopefully do statistical research with some prof. Taking a few grad courses in stat is also a good idea.