theduckster

I'm in the unusual position of having gotten into Berkeley's MA program despite only having a 3.3 major GPA in Engineering at the time of application (it's 3.5 now). My only remaining classes are engineering ones and one math class (including a graduate class), but I think it's highly likely that I may get all B's in my engineering classes and possibly one C (though I will work like hell to make sure the latter doesn't happen). Am I at risk here? Do you think Berkeley will care, given that my track record in engineering classes hasn't been stellar to begin with? Lol.

In addition to what hnn12 said, I will mention that Chicago's program is two years long and has both a thesis requirement AND consulting, whereas Stanford's program is ordinarily one year long and has no thesis requirement. If you don't already have research experience, Chicago is hands down better for a PhD IMO - it will give you a fair amount of experience that will help you get into some very good schools.

I've heard that UChicago's program is pretty grueling, but in a good way. It is hands down the best way to get strong research experience in Statistics (since you do a thesis as well as capstones), and their program often places students into top PhD programs in statistics. If you are interested in all that, then UChicago is a no brainer so long as you can afford it and aren't horribly allergic to cold weather. If not, then UW's program seems pretty solid for industry; if you are interested purely in industry, then you can't go wrong with either (but Chicago does have a little more brand recognition, and this might help if you are interested in finance or something).

@Bayequentist I'm a pretty unconventional applicant so perhaps my previous post was only 90% honest. With regards to your comment, my heart says PhD but my brain says Master's. Maybe next time!

Didn't get accepted by UChicago for an MS, which is totally fair. But not even being waitlisted despite having As in Real Analysis and Measure Theory, as well as some research experience? Also not shocking, but gotta say that stung a little. Could it be because I only have one statistics class (Probability Theory)? Blarg. Life goes on.

Speaking of rolling admissions, does anyone know what's up with the University of Washington MS (Advanced Methods) program? They seem to be giving acceptances & rejections all over the place...

@Monte Carlo You're scaring me. Care to put a Bayesian probability on this and explain your choice of prior? ?

This might seem like a dumb question but I'll ask it anyway: Does UIUC have rolling admissions for their Statistics Master's? I've seen a couple of admissions on the results page even though their deadline is way out (in April).

Rejected by Yale for MA Statistics. @ducky500 hopefully you have better luck!!

@StuartLittle I'm in the same boat as ducky500. You were mentioning something about different "waves" of acceptances for Yale MA Statistics; is it really typical for there to be multiple waves like this, and if so how are they spaced apart? Thanks!! Looking through the "Results" thread it seems like most previous admits received their acceptances late Jan/early Feb, so I'm not too thrilled about my chances at this point...

@fireuponthedeep I'd be careful about making implications like "PhDs dominate the top of X industry" ==> "Getting a PhD will help me climb up X industry". Lots of correlation vs. causation issues here, plus confirmation bias. Most billionaires have somewhat eccentric backgrounds, but doesn't mean we should start emulating them in that regard! The biggest cost with PhD is opportunity cost. Those are six years where, if you had stayed in industry, you could have gained valuable experience, a fair amount of money, and moved up the corporate ladder. But if you truly love research and want a research-based position, then going for a PhD makes complete sense.

I would also be shocked if Microsoft didn't help fund your PhD (conditional upon your return to Microsoft as research scientist, of course). They clearly want you and see your potential as a researcher, so it would be a winning strategy for them to hire you up front and incentivize you to join them after completing your PhD. Seems like a no brainer to accept the job, but that's just me

Wow. If UC Irvine got 400 applicants, then how would they be whittling that number down? Over-accepting using predictions based on yield, or just having a historically low acceptance rate and pulling people off the waiting list later?

Basically, I am asking if I have the green light to go full "Senioritis".... ....All joking aside, the reason I ask is so that I can see how to prioritize the various things I might have on hand for the remaining semester (such as internship apps and extracurriculars). Is a B the end of the world? What about a C? None of my remaining courses are math/stat courses, to provide additional context for answering the question. Thanks!!

As others will tell you, you should always go for the professor/faculty member that has directly worked with you and can say something strong about you. If a letter is just reiterating your transcript or CV, then it will probably be next to useless (unless the letter writer is a really good embellisher). Just make sure that at least one of your recommenders is a tenure-track professor (or academically-known individual) in a quantitative discipline. It seems like you've already got that covered, so no worries here.