Jump to content

trynagetby

Members
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About trynagetby

  • Rank
    Espresso Shot

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Word of warning, UT Austin is way more competitive than its rankings would indicate (probably as competitive as like TAMU/UNC/Winsconsin/NCSU).
  2. I'd add an opinion that on some things UCLA is stronger than UW, so I don't think its as one sided as the forum would say (this forums tends towards the standard statistics crowd). If you're interested in the more CSey side of Statistics (ML, Bayes Nets, HMM, Computer Vision, Generative modelings etc...) I think UCLA is stronger, especially now that Emily Fox left for Stanford. Still for the record I voted for UW.
  3. Marrying a Upenn Med School doctor while in PhD could effectively quintuple your stipend, so I would seriously consider this perk if you got game. In all seriousness though, if you're sure you want to do genetics Michigan is the best program hands down. I've talked to friends at JHU Biostats, visited Umich Biostat as part of an REU, and talked to Profs at Harvard biostats visit day. Every one of them mentioned Michigan Bio-statistics Department as being the dominant program in statistical genetics. About working with Doctors in Med-School and such, I wouldn't worry about it as the on
  4. Your tier of choices are way above my pay grade, but I'll throw in my two cents that it seems that Stanford doesn't seem to be the best choice. I'd recommend taking a look at their stats phd dissertations to see if you're interested in that type of work. Stanford posts dissertations publicly.
  5. I think you can check out my profile and results for a comparable example. I had a little more math and a lot more research than you, but also a lot of Bs, plus your school's reputation is slightly higher than mine. I also really only had 1 strong rec letter and a rec letter where I just asked a prof who taught a class I did well in. I still got into the lower top tier range of Stat PhDs (UMich, UW, Duke,etc..) and I suspect that you would too (at least one of them if you applied to all). Cracking Harvard/Berkely/CMU will be hard but you should definitely apply. In terms of classes, I'
  6. As someone who applied to both programs and got into some of both, I would pay more attention to the type of work that professors in Bio-statistics and statistics programs do and the coursework rather than the label. Biostatistics programs generally do more applied/methodology work that is focused on being immediately applicable to biomedical problems (hypothesis testing, Causal inference, etc...). Statistics programs generally do a wider range of stuff and if you want to do crazy theory like crazy asymptotic statistics or high-dimensional theory then you'll likely only be happy in a statistic
  7. @DanielWarlock gave a pretty comprehensive answer and I'm not knowledgeable about theoretical stats at all. I'll just throw in an observation that at all 4 different Stats/Biostats visit days at top 10 programs I've been to, someone has asked about how schools stack up in theoretical statistics and a professor said a variation on "oh for theoretical statistics, you should definitely consider (insert other Uchicago prof), and Chao Gao that guy is (insert superlative)".
  8. Sounds like Stanford's a real possibility dude, so I'd just apply to all the top places. Because you're domestic I really wouldn't bother applying lower than Michigan/UWashington/Duke. Actually should probably apply to like 2 lower schools in the top 20 out of an over-abundance of caution.
  9. I almost chose Michigan and I applied/reviewed UCLA (didn't get in lol, but I don't think I'm being sour grapes). But If you take a look at the top professors at UCLA and their fields of work, (with a few exception like handcock) you'll see that Michigan has multiple professors working in the same area and the best one is often of the same reputation as the UCLA counterpart (if not higher). I wouldn't consider Michigan weaker than Washington for comparison perspective.
  10. I mean it's possible to go from Duke Biostatistics to Upenn Biostatistics PhD to Harvard Biostatistics Professor. I met this professor during Harvard Biostats visit day: https://sites.google.com/view/ruiduan/biography?authuser=1 She's super smart ofc, but I don't think Duke biostatistics would limit you. I think professors from the Statistics department like Amy Herring and Fan Li now advise Biostatistics Masters. So if you can work with them and get their recommendations you'd be in great shape.
  11. If you don't take Columbia housing, it'll be rough for sure. Expect to pay 1.5-2k + even with a room mate. On safety, the Columbia area is very safe right now. I've walked alone at 1am from Manhattanville (if you work with Paninski/Cunningham you'll be up there) back to my Dorm near Columbia and have felt pretty safe because its pretty well lit and restraunts will be open. But NYC is a big city so you have to use common sense and be alert. There will be the same homeless people and some of them may have mental health issues that will cause them to harass you, but they won't cause you any ser
  12. An important consideration is that Berkley is an extremely graduate (read: PhD) focused school. Generally aside from Masters programs that are pipelines to PhDs (which I don't think Berkely MA in Stats is), Masters students are on the same priority as undergrads if not lower. Schools like Stanford which value teaching and education are more likely to provide more ample research experiences outside of PhD students. I speak as someone who did their BA from a very graduate orientated school.
  13. Sorry, was talking about Stats. The starter of the thread I think is applying to Stats programs. Funny how you get to know posters on the thread haha.
  14. No, PhD. Look up that email they sent way back where they ask you to fill out the google form about which profs you're interested in working with. Someone replied with asked a question and the graduate coordinator answered the question reply-all to the effect of "if you haven't heard back, you're on the waitlist"
  15. Judging from the email they replied all to a while back, it seems like they put everyone not accepted on the waitlist and rejected no one lol.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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