theduckster

I am not sure how CS grades are perceived for biostat but the fact that you have industry software experience should more than make up for that, especially if you pair it with a solid letter of recommendation from your employer. Plus, one B- in a non-statistics related course is nowhere near the end of the world.

I can't honestly say where you'll get in because I am clueless myself, but I am almost certain that some Top 100 school that is much more well-known than your current school has a cash cow program that accepts many applicants. As long as you are willing to spend the $$$ there, you will likely receive a decent education and have much improved networking opportunities to say the very least.

Your profile looks great for Biostats. Where are you thinking of applying?

Are you applying to PhD or Master's? If the latter (and you did well in the class), then it might help for the Stats professor to talk about it (though I'm not sure how much that would help since your grade is already there for everyone to see on your transcript). If PhD programs, definitely go with the quantitative marketing professor. He can speak to your overall character, intellectual curiosity, research habits, etc - all qualities that I would presume are heavily considered during applications. Regardless of programs, I would personally lean on the former professor than the latter. But go with your gut!

Thank you for your comment @cyberwulf. In my case I am applying to Master's programs, so would the letter still be okay if the letter writer (a lecturer) is talking about my class performance as he taught the advanced math class?

Thank you for your reply @ResilientDreams! I totally agree, but I am worried that the admissions committee will see it differently (even the faculty member in question warned me of this). Do any folks on this forum know how Statistics ad coms specifically would react in this situation?

I took a really enjoyable advanced math class at my university (proof-intensive) and the teacher was a postdoc at the time (now a "lecturer", and not yet a professor). I know his status might harm the letter, but he was a great teacher and I am also pretty sure I ranked top 3 in the class (and he is aware of this and will bring it up in the letter if he writes it). My question is: Should I still get this letter given that he is only a lecturer? Will admissions committees take it seriously?

Thanks for the help @CarolinaSmash! Since you've already done a lot of research (as I partially have), do you mind if I ask you for a list of great programs you've found that aren't either "cash cows"/schools that accept everyone, no questions asked, and schools that are a crapshoot? Having a great deal of difficulty finding such "target" schools since there are very few admissions statistics that I've found online

Sorry if I'm asking a bit of a personal question here, but I am just really stressed with regards to picking schools. I am an odd applicant with great math grades but a poor major grade (non-Statistics/math major here), and I am unsure if the schools I am picking are all a reach or not (I've already got chanced but cue paranoid me - I feel that seeing live data would be more useful!) Moreover, I did some research online and it seems that some of these programs are more competetive than people are letting on, though there are also those "cash cow" programs that are giving everyone acceptances. Extremely hard to tell which is which from the program websites alone, hence another reason for my stress. If you felt comfortable posting some profile information and your previous acceptances/rejections to good-great schools for an MS in Statistics, then I would be extremely grateful! (I already went over to the previous admissions threads and most of the posts are with regards to PhD programs.) If not, then that's okay too! Have a great rest of your day, and good luck to all applying for programs commencing in Fall of 2019.

I did some research in computational neuroscience that used a decent amount of math but have no completed research in statistics. Given that a lot of programs encourage applicants from outside of Statistics, how would such research experience be looked upon by admissions committees?

Just wanted to make sure you were asking at least 2 people within Stats/Math department or related fields, instead of asking someone in, say, Middle Eastern Art.

Wanted to change my above response to "You'll get into at least a couple of your schools". I was previously answering with the assumption you were applying to Master's in Statistics as opposed to Biostatistics (where the latter is less competetive and requires less mathematical rigor out of its applicants).

Your GRE quant score is great, but your math grades are underwhelming to say the least. With those grades it is unlikely you will get into a top school as they are all highly competetive. I think you'll probably get into at least one school on your list (probably UC Denver), but it is my understanding that the posters on here are kind of understating the competetiveness of Master's apps. People are applying to Statistics Master's programs en masse nowadays while university resources have not similarly increased, and the only downward pressure on that trend is the strong job market (which in a way might be exacerbating that trend, since the strong job market has accelerated the posting of data scientist jobs that require a professional degree). Case in point: I literally just got back from an email thread where the Purdue office said their Master's acceptance rate hovers around 15-20% (Purdue for crying out loud!) In light of all this I strongly recommend you diversify your applications and add more mid-tier schools (possibly substituted in for some of the top schools where you stand little chance). Your best bet overall to maximize acceptances? Apply to programs that specifically encourage applicants from industry. You can highlight your actuarial exams and work experience to great effect there.

Really? Interesting; this must vary vastly across departments. I've seen a PDF from a Stanford admissions committee member that LOR's can make or break an applicant as long as they are above a certain GPA/GRE threshold. In your experience, how do you distinguish applicants who are all within a relatively tight range of "qualified", academically speaking? Thank you for your insights!

And if so, are they still very important or just somewhat important? Just curious.

A Master's program is usually quite broad and applications seldom require you to pick an "area of interest". The latter is even true to some extent for PhD programs. Your GPA is great, but your GRE will definitely hurt you. Try to retake it and study hard. If you only have time to study one section, study for Quantitative.

Who are the recommendations from if you don't mind me asking? (General info, not personal details.)

For some schools "Advanced Calculus" is an intro to proofs class (using calculus). Those classes tend to be easier than straight-up real analysis classes. Good to know you went the whole 9 yards! I wish we used Baby Rudin in Real Analysis I studied from it independently.

I am under the impression that most rigorous Stat PhD programs have their students take a sequence in graduate probability theory that heavily utilizes measure theory. In light of this, taking a grad level class in measure theory would have you fully prepared for the rigors of such curricula and maybe even start looking into research topics in pure probability right out the bat (if this is what you are interested in). On the other hand, you mentioned that the programs probably will not see your grade (if they did, I would recommend measure theory hands down). Given this and your passion for Bayesian statistics (which is really important for industry and makes for fascinating research in its own right), you really can't go wrong either way.

Do the graduate statistics rankings play a huge role in the quality of the MS program (I assumed these rankings were more important for PhD programs)? What about rigor of courseload, industry/academia placement, etc? If you could share your own thought process for choosing schools then I would be very grateful

Could you elaborate more on this? Apparently some M.S. programs (like UNC and UChicago) require a year of statistics and/or specific statistics classes, though I'm not sure whether this is a hard prerequisite or one that is more flexible for mathematically-mature applicants.

Thanks again statfan! Do you (or anyone else) know how my math grades would stack up against someone who has much more of an academic background in statistics than me (say, a stats major with As in several mathematical statistics classes but no analysis/measure theory)? I was under the impression that the latter would be preferred, but the way I hear people talk about real analysis being a prerequisite for PhD programs I'm not so sure if this is the case, even for an MS...

Thanks cyclooxygenase and statfan for the insights. My major GPA will almost definitely be an issue for some highly competitive schools, though I might have wildcard odds at some of them. Thank you for your optimism nonetheless! You may very well know much more than me about this. And I will hopefully get back to you with upgraded GRE scores soon. Moreover, does anyone know any "target" schools I should look into for an MS program in statistics, given my profile? That would be a great help

I'm curious - have you taken any Real Analysis courses? Are your advanced calculus courses essentially analysis courses?

Going to bump this just once so that it isn't permanently buried :P