Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hnn12

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Don't bother retaking the test. Your score is good enough for any master programs in Statistics. GRE score is used by adcoms to sweep out applicants with very low score rather than to differentiate among qualified applicants. Given that you have very high GPA and solid letters of recommendation, I think you are in good shape to get into a top 10 master program. It is difficult to give you a more thorough assessment without additional information such as your undergrad institution.
  2. I am turning down Penn State, Purdue and UC Davis. Hope that helps waitlisted people.
  3. I am in the same situation without Rutgers. As to the placements of PhD graduates at UC Davis, I asked the program coordinator and she gave me a list of placements last year. It seems like most people (80-90%) go into industry. I prefer to work in industry after graduation, so the placements at UC Davis is very appropriate for me, but Rice seem to do equally well with regards to this aspect. UC Davis is close to Sacramento, which is a much smaller city, but it only takes less than 2 hours of drive to get to San Francisco and the tech hub in Palo Alto. However, Rice has the edge for me with reg
  4. In addition to what @Geococcyx said, you can try some Bioinformatics programs, which emphasize the computational aspect more. I have a friend who got into a reasonable PhD Bioinformatics program without any research experience and knowledge in biology. She has a light Maths background and come from an institution that is not known outside my country. That said, she got a higher GPA than you, so I am not sure how your chances are at PhD Bioinformatics, but you can give it a shot if you want. Perhaps more experienced members of the forum can give you more insights.
  5. I think it will be very, very tough for you to get into a reasonably good PhD program in Statistics. Your Master GPA is good, but it cannot make up for your Undergrad GPA. This is more so because your Undergrad was done in the US whereas your Master is in another country. I am an applicant this year, and I also got my education in the UK. My impression is that the admission committees are usually not familiar with our grading system. I know that Warwick has a fantastic Maths department and it is a great achievement to get 4.0 from them, but the adcoms may not have that knowledge. Furthermore,
  6. I think that you are aiming at reasonable schools. I suggest adding schools like UC Davis, Rice and UC Riverside to your list. I cannot recommend more without additional information like your research interests. With regards to your application, I think your Master GPA will be a negative point to the admission committee because it shows a downward trend from your undergrad and the average GPA for Master is around 3.8 if I remember correctly. This is more so for you because you are an international students, and the competition among us is real. IMO, I think top-30 schools in the US News rankin
  7. Both are amazing schools and you can't go wrong with either. IMO, it depends on what area of Statistics you want to pursue. Chicago is very, very theoretical and their curriculum contains a heavy amount of maths, so it is great if you want to focus on statistical theory. You can double-check what I have said by looking at the list of faculty members at Chicago. Stanford, on the other hand, is very strong in Machine Learning and you can find great opportunities to have hand-on experience in ML at one of the companies / startups in the Bay area. Overall, I think that Stanford is more balanced be
  8. Yes, your chance is significantly better with Linear Algebra on your transcript. The adcoms at top schools will much prefer proof-based courses in Linear Algebra. Some schools like Berkeley and Wisconsin explicitly ask you to submit a separate document that lists all the maths courses you have done, including the textbooks you use, so they can certainly check if your courses are proof-based or not. For most schools, they do not ask you to submit this document. Unfortunately, this is why the prestige of undergrad institution is so important for top schools. It is difficult to judge the qua
  9. IMO, your list of schools matches really well with your research interests. I would highly recommend you to apply to UConn and Purdue, too. They have some good faculty members in your chosen areas. For example, Purdue has Bruce Craig and Tonglin Zhang. I think that your GPA is great, and the fact that your undergrad institution is in Canada will probably help, as most US professors are familiar with the Canadian grading system. The weakest point in your application is probably your lack of advanced maths courses. I see that you have done Real Analysis, but you need to have Linear / Abstra
  10. No consultant in this world can fix your transcript and LoR, which are the most important components in your applications. Competition among international students has got to a point where top GPA, prestigious undergrad institution and good LoR can only get you into consideration at top schools. They have many people with perfect GPA, so you need extra things to stand out. To be accepted at those schools, you need strong research experience, excellent LoR from well-known professors, and a bit of luck too. I don't see how a consultant can help you with those. If the OP has $3,000 to spend, I wo
  11. I will echo the advice that has been given to you. I am an applicant this year and the competition among international students has really struck me very hard. I know people with stellar profiles, who got rejected by top-10 schools. You can increase your chance (significantly) by applying to larger PhD Statistics programs such as OSU, UConn, UF and Florida State. They have good faculty members in missing data and causal inference. Keep in mind that most students actually change their research directions after a few years into their PhDs. Don't bother applying to small programs like Yale, North
  12. I think contacting professor in advance matters much more in disciplines such as Computer Science, where students are admitted to professors' lab (and thus funded by professors). In such cases, you are likely to get in if the professors really want to have you in their labs. In Statistics, it is the departments that make admission decisions. That said, I still dropped professors' names in my SOP and so far, they have always appeared in my interviews (if there was one).
  13. Have you all heard back from Columbia? They tend to release decisions in late February, but it seems like they were still interviewing applicants on the 18th?
  14. I think they mean only PhD applications. Given that Penn State is a popular school, I am not surprised that they receive that many applications. I am not sure if Harvard even does waitlisting. Not seemed to happen in the past few years.
  15. Did anyone here get offer from Harvard? It seems like they have sent out some offers. But I still have heard nothing. Also, CMU seems to be very late this year.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.