[Fall 2019 Statistics Applicant Thread]

19 minutes ago, galois said:

I'm surprised about UNC as well. IMO if students are on your waitlist, you should at least make contact with them at some point prior to April. I can only see benefits to doing that, where are the drawbacks??

I applied to UNC (STOR) last year and had assumed rejection because I didn't hear anything before April 15th. Then, I received an email in early July telling me that I had been accepted. This was for the MS program but still lol.

[Venting Thread- Vent about anything.]

I'm supposed to start grad school in the fall after working for a number of years. I'm absolutely dreading it. My old job was not very well paying, super easy, and didn't have much room for growth, but I'm really missing it. I think it's mostly missing the stability and guaranteed income, but those are important things to have.

 I'm beginning to doubt whether I should even bother with grad school. I'm also doubting whether the field I've chosen to study actually interests me. 

[Preparation for (Bio)Statistics PhD]

37 minutes ago, Applied Math to Stat said:

Well.. PhD admissions committees in Statistics would certainly view more mathematics courses (not necessarily more statistics) as a positive, but they also admit a lot of students with degrees in Statistics.  How much funding are we talking about? If you are able to take the Casella-Berger sequence and maybe one additional stat course in the Mathematics MS program to familiarize yourself with statistical concepts, then this is not a bad option. On the other hand, if the Statistics MS programs give you enough flexibility to take math courses, then that is also a good option.

Funding is full tuition remission + 1600/month. They don't use Casella-Berger (they use Wackerly-Mendenhall-Scheaffer instead?) but I would have the flexibility to take at least three (probably more) stat courses. It's a joint math-stats department so I think it's really flexible.

8 minutes ago, bayessays said:

You said before that you didn't think your research background was good enough - getting a math degree isn't going to help you there. I'd slightly disagree with AppliedMathtoStat maybe, depending on your exact situation. If you've taken real analysis and did very well (and perhaps a few other courses stats programs sometimes look for like numerical analysis), then the marginal benefit of getting a MS in math is going to be small.  Getting a top MS in stats where you take theoretical classes shows you are interested in statistics, know what you are getting into and can complete the coursework. If you want to be a statistician, do you really want to spend two years getting a math master's? Are you sure your profile isn't good enough where you could apply to PhD programs next year without getting a master's at all and saving money?

Well, I applied to a couple statistics PhD programs this year between 10-30 and got into 0 of them. I think it's probably because I've been out of school for a few years now and I lacked the direction and some of the math/stats background that other candidates might have had. I agree that I would prefer to get a MS in stats/biostats over a MS in math but if math makes me way more competitive then it might be worth it.

Thanks for your help guys - leaning towards UMN at the moment.

[Preparation for (Bio)Statistics PhD]

On 3/20/2018 at 8:54 PM, Applied Math to Stat said:

I would agree with the UMN program description that if you want to get a PhD in Statistics, your best bet is to take graduate level math classes... possibly Real Analysis II, a measure theory class, an advanced linear algebra class, complex analysis, or a partial differential equations class.

 As a Masters student, I wouldn't bother taking an upper division PhD-level theoretical stats class (like Advanced Statistical Inference/decision theory, theory for Generalized Linear Models, or large sample theory), since you would just need to take these courses again in the PhD program. And some schools seem to want to teach these to you *their* way  -- a lot of it is the same at different schools, but the qualifying exams are likely to cover slightly different material. Showing mathematical maturity and getting great letters of recommendation which speak to your potential to excel as a researcher are the most critical components of your PhD application.

Would a MS in Math be better preparation in your opinion? I got into a funded MS math program at a well-regarded but unranked institution (they don't grant PhDs) but I wasn't seriously considering it because I got into UNC and Minnesota. You're really stressing graduate level math/mathematical maturity for the stats PhD so maybe I should reconsider?

[Preparation for (Bio)Statistics PhD]

Thanks for the help guys. I just checked and both of these programs do teach the Casella-Berger sequence and an applied sequence. It seems like the biggest difference (other than the obvious bio/health focus of UNC's program) is that UNC's program has more required classes with fewer electives and UMN has more flexibility. Both require two upper level statistics electives but Minnesota also requires two electives outside of the department (they suggest math if interested in the PhD).

UNC is cheaper but I'm drawn to the colder weather/bigger city of Minneapolis - it's going to be a tough decision!

[Preparation for (Bio)Statistics PhD]

Hi all, I know there are some posts on this topic already, but I figured other people might currently be making the same type of decision. Right now, I think that I want to eventually go for a PhD in either stats or biostats (I'm undecided, I like the more applied nature of biostats but I would not want to limit myself to only applied work if I can handle the theory). I didn't think my background/research experience was good enough for good PhD programs, so I'm hoping to use a MS in biostats/statistics as preparation for the PhD. At this point, my choice likely comes down to the MS in biostats from UNC or the MS in stats from Minnesota.

I know that having a strong theoretical foundation is of primary importance for PhD applications so my inclination is to go to Minnesota as statistics programs are (in general) more theoretical than biostatistics. However, I've read on this forum that UNC biostats is known for having a pretty theoretical program (not sure if this applies to the Masters?). Also, I think that I'd have better opportunities to be involved in research in a biostatistics department rather than a statistics department.  

Which program do you think is better for PhD preparation? Do you think doing UNC's biostats program would hurt my chances for a statistics PhD? Possibly important information: I graduated with a BA in math and got an A in real analysis, but I haven't taken statistics since high school. Thanks for any help you can provide!