stat_guy

Are they both statistics? If it's biostats or other related programs that'd be a totally different story. But even if they're both stats, I don't see Yale's stats is that bad though Chicago does have a higher rank.

Hi @Nothalfgood, I'm also looking for some fun stuff to learn this summer! BTW I'm an incoming PhD student in statistics. Here's a page I found particularly helpful: https://github.com/sshkhr/awesome-mlss. If you want someone to form a study group or something, feel free to PM me.

I'm just another stats/biostats PhD applicant this year. I've been working at Harvard biostats for a while. IMO this is a more applied department, since as you know they have arguably the best medical school in the world therefore many high-quality data. But they do have some theoretical people, like Rajarshi Mukherjee, Tianxi Cai, Junwei Lu, etc. Another factor you should consider is what topics in biostats you're interested in. For example, if you're interested in statistical genetics I'd vote for Harvard biostats, for example Xihong Lin is a pretty strong faculty in this area. If you're interested in causal inference, Harvard is good at it too but I personally favor Mark at Berkeley. Overall I agree there are more people working on theory and methodology at Berkeley stats than Harvard biostats. You can't go wrong either way, best of luck to your decision!

No one before, but they hired a new AP working on ML and causal inference as of Jan 2021.

Thanks for your insights @MathStat! I'll definitely attend Chicago visit day and hopefully see you there.

Thanks for your thoughts @StatsG0d. I strongly agree there're much more possibilities to try out at Chicago, students can work with someone in stats, TTIC, booth and CAM, whereas choices at Yale are more limited. But this has been a different story for me since I already had clear research interests and professors of interest accordingly. My POIs at Yale are two senior faculty; big name but less active and pretty busy by looking at their publication records and talking to current Yale students. However I did set up a talk with them and they said they'll focus more on their research in the coming years. My POI at Chicago is a rising star, and very supportive and hands-on (according to his recent graduates and current students). What do you think of senoir busy big name VS junior hands on rising star? If this is relevant, I'm a self-motivated person and like pushing myself hard but you know everyone likes a more supportive advisor:) Besides mentor style, placement is also something I'm seriously considering. I don't want to shut down the door of academic positions at such an early stage, though I do a bit favor industry right now. But who knows, five years can change lots of things. For academic job, Yale has real stronger records, like AP at Wharton/Columbia/UChicago/Princeton in recent five years while Chicago doesn't have such strong cases. For industry I think the two are in pretty much the same good level.

In my understanding, your "intro to analysis 1 & 2" is real analysis, right? If so I would definitely recommend it. Take it as early as possible and get a good grade. Seems like the only option for you is to take it this fall, which means you probably won't have the grade for that course by the time you submit your application. But I think that's ok, many schools allow applicants to update their transcript in Jan, so you certainly can do it. In addition, I don't think number theory would be that relevant for your application but you of course can take it out of your personal interest.

If research at UW is better aligned with your interest, I'd vote for UW. You would also have much more choices at UW than Duke. As to academic placement, I think this is something more out of self-choice. Given the great location of UW and their prestigous department, it's not strange for most of their PhD graduates to be prone towards industry positions. But if you want to stay in academia, I believe UW is able to help you succeed just like what Duke could do.

I didn't have experience with UChicago before. I'm a senior undergrad and just got into UChicago stats PhD program. The information I provided above is from talking to some current students and faculty members there.

In my opinion, Berkeley and Chicago are way better than UIUC academically in statistics. If you're almost sure you want a job upon graduation, I think Berkeley is a better fit. Its perfect location and brand recognition in the field of statistics would make your job searching a lot easier. However, if you're not sure about industry or PhD, Chicago is a better fit I think. If you still decide to go industry after your master, Chicago is a very nice place to find a job in finance if that's your interest (If you want to work in tech company, of course I would vote for Berkeley as first choice). Don't worry about Chicago's being too theoretical, doing theory or application is primarily out of students' self choice. You could definitely do some very theoretical work for your master thesis if you want, but you could also do a literature review or data analysis sort of thing which could help you gain many practical experience and help your job searching. If you want to continue for a PhD, Chicago is definitely better than Berkeley. Some outcomes of their recent master graduates include Chicago stat, Chicago Booth econometrics and statistics, Yale stat, Stanford stat, Wisc stat, etc.

Thanks for your advice, @Stat Assistant Professor! I'm also leaning towards Yale. Its excellent academic placement is definitely a big plus to me. Though I'm now a bit favor industry jobs, I believe there is still a pretty chance for me to stay in academia:) If the industry outcomes are similar from the two programs but academic placement is significantly better at Yale, I think Yale would be a better place for me regardless of the ranking thing. One thing is that my POI at Yale is one of the big names but he seems to be less active and way too busier than my POI at Chicago who is a rising star and has a reputation of being very hands-on which I heard from his current students. I personally think I'm highly self-motivated, but still would like to have a more hands-on and supportive advisor.

I just got that impression by talking with their current students at both schools. In fact both schools have many requirements to be a candidate, so I would say the two programs are equally heavy load in terms of their requirements. But since historically Chicago is more reputed in natural sciences than Yale is, its culture is a bit more "cut-throat" (I agree with you Chicago students seem to be more motivated thus work much harder) while Yale's atmosphere seems a lot more friendly in general. Maybe cohort size is also something affects working culture, Chicago stats is obviously larger than Yale's in terms of both faculty and students.

Congrats on your offers! I'm also a stat/biostat PhD applicant this year. I have one common offer with you, UNC biostats PhD though I've declined it. Below are some opinions of mine. Hope that helps! If you're sure you want to do biostats - I would say UNC is the best one among other biostats offers from an academic perspective. It ranks right behind the big three in biostats (Harvard, JHU, UW) by US News. I'm not saying ranking should be the most important factor to consider, but it is definitely a reflection of their academic strengths. UNC biostats is a large department so it covers many research areas, from methodology to application, or a combination of the two. It's relatively easy for you to find an advisor of interest. But one thing to notice is their funding issues. Seems like they like sending out unfunded offers and let students themselves go find advisors to get funding. If you're still deciding between stats and biostats (like me, I applied both but lean towards stats program), I think UC Irvine would also be a good place to go. I don't know much about stats at UC Irvine, but in general there're many professors working on biostats in statistics department, so you could still work on applied statistics if it turns out to be your real interest later on.

Hi everyone, I'm trying to decide between UChicago and Yale, both are PhD in Statistics. I'd like to hear any suggestion from people who have experiences with or know well about the programs. I want to do ML and would like a combination of theoretical and applied training. At both schools there're faculty members who match my interests very well. And upon graduation I'm a bit leaning towards industry; slightly perfer Quant over tech, this may change though. Here are some pros and cons to me from talking with their current students and faculty in both programs. Yale: Pros Very solid theoretical training. Had a pleasant conversation with my POIs and they agreed to co-advise me, one theoretical and one applied. The program is expanding rapidly. They've doubled their faculty size over the past three years. Good atmosphere. It's small though, people seem like to be very well connected. And a better work-life balance. Cons Historically Yale Stat is not as prestigous as UChicago Stat (lower US News ranking), though I believe this would change in the coming years as Yale is actively investing their Stat department. Not sure how this would affect job searching. Location. I actually don't have preference about living places, but Chicago is a real better place to get a Quant job. Less alumni from this program. UChicago: Pros Highly ranked for its statistics program. Right behind Stanford and Berkeley, same as Harvard, according to US News 2018. Larger department thus more possibilities to try out. Though I currently have set research interests and have a great chat with my POI over there, it's very likely for people to change their interests. If so I would have more choices at Chicago than at Yale. Excellent placement in Quant companies like Two Sigma, Citadel, etc. Might get more alumni connections during job searching. Personally feel like UChicago's location would make me more marketable for a Quant job, not sure how important the location is for a PhD graduate though. Please corrent me if wrong. Cons From chatting with couple current students, they seem to have more peer pressure at Chicago than those at Yale. Yale's students would come out as more well-rounded. Though I know this factor shouldn't be given a high priority for a PhD program, I certainly prefer a less pressured vibe if the outcomes of the two programs are comparable. Chicago's brand recognition may not be as good as Yale. Though I think this is not that much important for a PhD, but can anyone comment on this? Overall speaking, at both schools I have interested professors who have agreed to take me, so I wouldn't be worried about advisors - all very good, one big name, one rising star. My primary concerns are on the outcome of the two programs and their working culture.

Would like to know too!