Jump to content

trynagetby

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by trynagetby

  1. Depends on how much money matters to you. If money isn't a big issue UPenn would be good. I think you can get close to professors and if you do well, next year you will be able to get into a higher ranked program (even if its not Upenn). That said, Masters are expensive and debt in grad school would be rough.
  2. @Stat Assistant Professor Just out of curiosity what programs do you think are currently over-ranked?
  3. If you got A's in your graduate real analysis class + you have a good relationship with 2 of your letter writers you're in good shape. I'm fairly confident that just having a good relationship with your profs so they write LOR is more important than publishing. Given my previous setence you have a strictly stronger profile than me and I was got into Umich/Duke/Wisconsin/Uwashington. Unfortunately I didn't apply to Harvard/Berkley (regret it now lol). So I think your floor should be the schools mentioned above and apply to all the schools above.
  4. Thank you so much! Do you have any textbooks you would recommend for studying Stochastic processes? Is a super in-depth understanding of stochastic processes in terms of martingales necessary (I really struggled with those as an undergrad)?
  5. Hi all, so I'm very likely to go to Duke Statistics for PhD. My job isn't very demanding and my brain has been slowly rotting away, so I really need to get back into the math groove. Aside from a review of analysis, measure theory, linear algebra, probability etc, does anyone have any recommendations for what topics are important to study for modern Bayesian research e.g (functional analysis, topology, stochastic processes, graph theory ...). Other from passing first year classes/quals I'd like to get a general idea of the important mathematical tools out there even I don't have the time to master them.
  6. Here's my very affective (read unscientific, subjective) rankings from stalking alumni placements and professor productivity. It's pretty much a reranking of US News with the added information of the tiers indicating where the big jumps in quality are. I think within tiers the choice doesn't matter too much. Stanford Tier: Stanford. Elite Top: Berkley, Harvard, CMU, (Likely UChicago but I didn't research them) Top: Uwashington, Duke, Michigan, Columbia, Cornell, UNC Up there: NCSU , TAMU, UT Austin, UCLA, Wisconsin
  7. The Feeling when acceptances/waitlists have come out for CMU and you still haven't heard back:
  8. Thanks @Stat Assistant Professor this information is invaluable for people choosing a program. Just out of curiosity what is considered a "good" volume/year of publications at these venues? I've been researching professors I'd be interested in working with a noticed that some of them have had a significant drop-off in publishing volume for the past few years. Should this be a red flag?
  9. Are all the Annals considered prestigious/indicators of the same publishing quality? So is the reputation of Annals of Applied Statistics and Annals of Statistics on the same level?
  10. Is anyone else still waiting on CMU? I'm still holding out hope because I applied to one of the join programs and it seems like they historically might come out later than the core.
  11. I'm doing the same for Statistics PhD programs. I can't recommend MIT open courseware enough for reviewing Real Analysis/learning more advanced probability theory. They have exercises, book chapters, and problem solutions. They even post exams with solutions so you can test yourself. It's really helpful with harder books like Rudin because they provide lecture notes where Rudin is lacking and points you to doable problems instead of the crazy impossible stuff. I'd also recommend reading/working through some more rigorous applied math books. Examples are like Linear Algebra by Friedberg, Insel, Spence and Applied Analysis by Hunter.
  12. Hi, I got into both programs as well (ML program in the IsYE department). For Georgia Tech's academic placements, the variance largely dissapears once you control for advisors. I'm would check the placement of the alumni who graduted under the advisors you'd be interested in working with as well as how many students those professors are taking.
  13. Hi all, my current top choices are between the University of Washington and Duke. University of Washington fits my research interests much more closely (Bayesian model/variable selection with applications in social sciences) and it seems like a really good program. However, when I look at their recent alumni placements I can't help but notice that almost none of them go into academia, while it seems that 40% of Duke Alumni go into TT jobs. Based on some cursory stalking only like 2 in the past 4 years of graduating classes landed TT positions. Does this indicate that the program is more geared (consciously or not) to producing Data science industry researchers? I think I'd also be happy at Duke as they also have fantastic people whos methodological research aligns with mine, so academic placements could definitely be a deal breaker.
  14. Given the fact that they sent the email out as a response to an applicants inquiry without even anonymizing the applicants contact info, I don't think we should expect too much from the department in terms of organization/communication/responsibility lol.
  15. Following what Bayessays, high concentration of people who go into acadmia really only starts happening at the level of Berkley, Chicago, Stanford, Harvard, CMU. The next tier down (UWashington, Duke, UMich, UNC,...) the vast majority of alumni still go into Data science positions. I say this because I've been researching UWashington and Duke as potential programs and most of the people I see on their webistes go to industry.
  16. Depends on how low the program is. But If you haven't had Real Analysis/Upper division Linear algebra (or did poorly in them) and you got an interview at Berkley I think you definitely have a shot at getting into some top programs if you reapply having fixed those issues (maybe even if not). I have a friend who applied out of college, didn't get in anywhere. Applied the next year with a single swapped rec without retaking any classes and got into Berkley and Duke. Admissions might have been way rougher this year due to COVID so you definitely have a good chance of getting in somewhere better IMO.
  17. Anyone else get an offer from Uwashington this week? I have a deep suspicion that I got off a hidden waitlist haha. Also to people waiting to hear back from schools that have already released acceptances: There is still hope!
  18. Anyone who got CMU offers today get it from their Statistics/Public Policy joint PhD program?
  19. Hi, I'm an U.S Asian male, so I hope I don't come off as mansplaining. Your situation definitely sounds very painful and maybe fits into larger problems of University administration. There seems to be a principle-agent problem when it comes to diversity. Most pressure to diversify comes from administration and maybe a few faculty members, but the day-to-day operations are left to your average professor 95% focused on research. So unless the majority of faculty are super passionate, departments can't really do much above the minimum to keep the administration happy (and how is the administration supposed to know that measure theoretic probability is super hard lol). At the risk of sounding like all the other people you talked to, I hope you don't get too discouraged. I honestly don't see white women benefiting that much from AA at the graduate level. There are a lot of fully qualified, exceptional women applying to Stat PhD programs and the admission statistics reflect this. Adcoms will not admit unqualified people no matter what the administration says because ultimately its the department that is shelling out a lot of money for you. You are probably qualified, maybe not overqualified, but qualified nonetheless. Admissions are super random, and not completely based on visible factors. It's likely you really impressed your recommenders and they wrote killer things about your potential that are separate from your mathematical ability but are just as important. On ways to raise concerns, maybe try the diversity dean/officer/secretary. They'll advocate for you without naming you and professors expect that type of stuff from them without looking into it. Also to comment on your concerns that your peers look better than you on paper. I look like I have a a decent math profile from an Ivy league. But I'm actually not good at math/analysis, we just have a ridiculous amount of grade inflation.
  20. Harvard is also ranked that high on the QS rankings. Seems consistent.
  21. Does anyone know if UT Austins QS and U.S News rankings are deceptively low? I got into Duke, Umich (Ranked Top 10 programs), and Wisconsin but got waitlisted at UT Austin (Top 50). I'm super grateful/happy for my acceptances and not complaining. I'm just curious if this means that the rankings are not reliable at all.
  22. I have a different experience. I was an undergraduate at Columbia and met a decent number of people (n = 3) in their first/second years in the Statistics department who graduated from Stanford's Stats masters program. They seemed to have a fine time finding research opportunities at Stanford as long as they could show genuine interest. Specifically taking some neuroscience classes and demonstrating strong math/computational background allowed them to work with some pretty top profs doing computational neuroscience. They probably weren't as close to professors as PhD students but definitely close enough to get stellar recs. Not sure how well this generalizes to other departments.
  23. I think people might disagree with me, but I think if the money/time to take it isn't too burdensome it might be worth it. If you have a weaker math background a 165 might cast doubt on your quantitative ability and make the difference if you're borderline. At the same time I don't think a 165 would axe you application. Just an encouraging note I took the GRE cold and got a 164 Q the first time and found the kinda hard, but got a 170Q the next and thought it was super easy with not much additional studying. It doesn't take that much more effort to get 170Q as your performance can vary so much test to test.
  24. Me when UWashington acceptances came out and my inbox was empty: It is the evening of the day I press refresh on gradcafe Rows of green I can see But not for me I sit and watch As acceptances go by My gpa can’t buy anything I just wish I was better at proving things All I hear is the sound Of emails going around I sit and watch As acceptances go by It is the evening of the day I press refresh on gradcafe Seeing profiles like I used to do they think are new I sit and watch As tears go by
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use