Geococcyx

I agree with bayessays, but I did want to add in one edge case -- I really wanted to go to CMU in part because of their strong collection of people working on applications in sports (more the students than the professors I think, but they host a summer research program for sports statistics too).  Of course, that's a niche interest, so YMMV.

I agree with bayessays, but I did want to add in one edge case -- I really wanted to go to CMU in part because of their strong collection of people working on applications in sports (more the students than the professors I think, but they host a summer research program for sports statistics too).  Of course, that's a niche interest, so YMMV.

Unless you are extraordinarily wealthy, going to Michigan is the only reasonable decision here in my opinion.  In addition to saving the money, you have a great shot at their PhD program and great preparation for other PhD applications as well.

(They only do grad program rankings every several years (4, maybe?), so 2018 should be the most recent)
 

Also keep in mind that when most of this forum talks about academia, they are talking about jobs at PhD-granting institutions.  In that case, the above paths are the likely ones. I also see people do a year or two doing post-docs at Microsoft research or something similar and then becoming professors. 
But it is *very* possible to work in industry for years or even decades and get a job at a small liberal arts college or less prestigious state school. I see it all the time.

I got the final offer from the University of Iowa with TA. EXTREMELY HAPPYYYY!   

Glad to hear that you also got an offer. I think they will send an official letter with the amount of stipend confirmed (it says no less than $20k!). They wrote: "... Final confirmation and the official admission letter will come from the Office of Admissions after it verifies that you have met all Graduate College requirements. ...", "... The final salary amount for academic year 2021-22 will be released upon the completion of pending contract negotiations. ..."

Congratulations! I got the offer too. Btw, do we still have to wait for the official admission letter since the email only said "The Graduate Committee of the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science has recommended that you be admitted"? Let me know if you got the same email.

I feel like Michigan is far and away the best option here. Not quite as good as Washington's department, but it's funded, you're virtually guaranteed PhD admissions, and you can apply to other PhD programs after two years if you don't like it there.

I saw that CMU dropped it for their traditional stats PhD (the joint ones still require it).

I don't think the program is looked down upon at all, even on this forum.  There have been multiple applicants over the years who have expressed that the program, at least in their admissions, has some organizational/communication problems.  But I don't think anyone doubts that they have some very good people.

Just got an unofficial acceptance from NC State in an email from Graduate program director. Finally some relief! 

I got an offer from UT-Houston today!

Here are some things which come to mind when I think about these programs. Of course, this is based on my observations (and narratives from others) and hence entirely subjective:
Harvard: Light coursework, heavy emphasis on research. Can be competitive. Many graduates end up in Harvard-affiliated non-faculty (or contract faculty) positions.
Hopkins: Heavy coursework. Fun environment (at least inside the building). Most well-known advisors very "data science"-y. 
UW: Heavy coursework. Fun student experience. Thin on advisors that don't do variable selection/machine learning. Students tend to graduate with a broad background but few papers.
UNC: Moderate coursework. Strong connections to industry. Big program with high student-to-faculty ratio. Students can get "lost" and take a long time to graduate (or not graduate at all).
Michigan: Moderate coursework. Big program. Well-rounded, particularly strong in genetics/genomics and causal inference.
UC Berkeley: Light coursework. High flexibility, "choose your own adventure". Not affiliated with a medical school, so more emphasis on methods than application.

I was accepted earlier this afternoon via email.

Got into the Warwick Stats PhD. Very excited! Still waiting for other unis replies but do not have much hope as far as other programs are rather competitive and my background is not ideal.

Great - if the degree were an MPH, I would have recommended you go to Duke as you really do want to make sure that you have an MS. But Ohio State has a good statistics program (their stat department, which is where many of your classes will be, is higher ranked than Duke's biostatistics program).  I also looked at the curriculum and their are plenty of opportunities to take classes that will give you a great foundation. For me, the fellowship would make this an easy decision - the degrees will be equally valuable to you, and the benefit of ending school without that debt holding you down will be enormous.  I went to a midwestern university for my MS in biostatistics and plenty of people get jobs on the coasts, so even if Duke might give you a slight advantage with connections out there, I think you still will be fine!

I got an acceptance from Baylor this morning! Deadline is February 26th since first year students start in July, so I'm hoping to hear back from other schools before then. Funding is $20,700/9 months, and they also offered an additional $7k fellowship for the first year for having a "strong application".

Sup y'all. I got my first acceptance today into UC Santa Barbara's Stats program! According to the survey page, some others did too.  Wooooooooooooooooooo ?

To your last question, it's certainly possible for programs that typically interview to accept candidates without interviews, since they may just choose to not do interviews for some or all students that year -- for instance, I think Duke used to do interviews before my application year, but I know they didn't do interviews my year (at least for domestic students) and so far as I know they didn't go back to interviewing people.  
I imagine the answer to your middle question depends on the program, although I can't pretend to be an expert.  Maybe someone else can help you with specific schools in mind.
For your initial question:  I had one interview, and for that I just got an email invitation to a "recruitment day" for top candidates, and heard something akin to an accept/waitlist/reject a month or two later.  I think I applied to one or two programs that also did interviews that year, and was aware interviews had happened at each place well before I got a decision notification (which were both rejections, as expected).  That said, this is all pre-COVID, so for all I know admissions committees still aren't sure how they're going to do things this year.  

Saw this virtual panel apparently from UC-Berkeley and Michigan Stat PhD students to answer questions about Stat PhD admissions and whatnot, and figured people who come here might also be interested in it.  I claim no knowledge of these folks, but Rob Santos tweeted this out, so I'll take the liberty of assuming he hasn't gotten hacked or whatnot (and I haven't seen anyone else post it; if they have, we can delete this).
Anyways, the panel is at 7 PM Eastern time on Oct 13 (today/tomorrow, depending on how you delineate that).  Here's the link:  https://www.statsphd.com/ to their site, or the Zoom registration directly to save you a click:  https://umich.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_R9Bjv3IdRoqmrdygdnkNPA 

I agree and I was going to comment something similar. I would say that you at least should have some interest in public health. If you're just in it for the math, you'd probably be happier at a statistics department.

Yes. 
You'll probably find as you get engaged in research you'll learn (and hopefully become interested in) some of the underlying biology related to the problem(s) you're studying. A lack of interest in biological applications would make someone a bad fit for a biostat program, but a lack of experience and knowledge isn't an issue.

I think it's probably important to point out to someone unfamiliar with biostatistics programs that "biological applications" is pretty loosely defined.  A few people do genetics/bioinformatics stuff, but is analyzing clinical trial, epidemiological data, or health records really biological in any meaningful way where somebody not liking "biology" would be an impediment?

I think people who are not interested in applied statistics at all and want to do more theoretical work should go to statistics programs.  Also some biostatistics programs do not have opportunities to teach since the departments don't have undergraduate students.  OP sounds like they would enjoy biostat.