cyberwulf

Members
  • Content count

    671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

cyberwulf last won the day on November 18 2016

cyberwulf had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About cyberwulf

  • Rank
    Latte Macchiato

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Application Season
    Not Applicable
  • Program
    Biostatistics (faculty)

Recent Profile Visitors

12,806 profile views
  1. MS Biostat Evaluation

    I think you'd be a solid candidate for most Masters programs in the field.
  2. Namedropping in SOP

    Drop names or don't, it probably doesn't matter. I guess I would lean slightly against doing it, since you do run the risk of looking uninformed if the given professor isn't really active, etc. The basic idea is that if you're not confident talking about the research that individual faculty members are doing, you probably shouldn't be spending a lot of space on it in the SOP.
  3. "Hot" areas in Biostats/Stats?

    The journal Statistical Science has quasi-review articles; you might want to browse some recent issues.
  4. Hi cyberwulf,

    As a Canadian applicant, I am not sure what my chances are at top US schools. I am from the University of Waterloo, currently in stat master program and I also did my undergraduate here. Would you mind to spend a few minutes going through my profile? Your evaluation will be highly appreciated.

  5. A 161Q combined with a W in Real Analysis will likely raise some concerns about your ability to the "hard math" required in a top-tier PhD program (whether that ability is strongly correlated with being a successful biostatistician is another discussion...), so it's a good thing you're retaking the GRE. To the extent that you're comfortable, would definitely mention in your personal statement that the course withdrawal was precipitated by an underlying health issue. I think the "safest" options on your list are probably Columbia and Boston University; they are both relatively large programs in the 8-15 ranking range. Brown and Emory are in the same range, but for various reasons (Brown = small, Emory = strong applicant pool) it's harder to count on a positive decision from them. I think your "core" schools (i.e., the best programs you have a decent shot at getting into) are in the 4-10 range, including NC State. As of now, you have a bit of a hole in that range outside of the two NC schools, so you might look into places like Michigan, Minnesota, Berkeley, and Penn.
  6. Profile Evaluation: Statistics PhD

    It's probably not necessary to retake the GRE to fix your AWA score. With a 169 verbal and a liberal arts education (with, presumably, A's in virtually all your non-quantitative courses), any reasonable admissions committee member is likely to just dismiss the 3.0 writing score as an anomaly. Generally speaking, a student with a 3.95+ from a "respectable" school (i.e., a place that most academics have at least heard of; it doesn't have to be "famous") should be competitive for PhD admission at most programs. Your list of schools seems pretty reasonable to me. You might consider throwing an app at Washington, since they have a fairly robust social stats group.
  7. You should be applying to PhD programs. Most schools will automatically consider you for the Masters if you aren't admitted to the PhD, and once admitted, most also allow you to transfer out of the PhD into the Masters if it's not to your liking.
  8. Profile Evaluation: Biostatistics PhD

    I think retaking the GRE with that score is a waste of time. The only concern I have with the 'F' is that, in the context of the rest of your generally solid grades, people will wonder what happened there. Isolated F's sometimes signal cheating, so it's probably a good idea to address the grade in your personal statement (basically saying what you did above, i.e., that you were burned out and flaked on the course). It'll be interesting to see your results; you have very good mathematical prep from a strong school, so despite the low Masters GPA you could get some decent outcomes. Your list seems like a good start.
  9. You would be required to submit it at my institution, and I imagine most have a similar policy. I agree that it's a little silly for some Indian applicants, but we do see some meaningful spread in English ability from the group as a whole so it does provide some information.
  10. Profile Evaluation - MS Statistics

    Since students are paying, most schools (even elite ones) aren't terribly selective when it comes to admission to their Masters programs. Basically, if the program has a lot of students, the admissions bar probably isn't that high. I'd be surprised if your profile didn't get you into most of the programs you've listed.
  11. What might keep you out of a top 10 program is your relative lack of math courses. Is there a reason you aren't looking at biostat as an alternative? I think your profile would play a little better there.
  12. I think your lists are a little too top-heavy. In Biostat, for example, you're a major longshot for Harvard and Hopkins and kinda borderline for Michigan/UNC/Berkeley/Brown. I would recommend including more schools in the 10-20 ranking range (Penn, Emory, Columbia, UCLA, etc.) because I think your chances will be better there. Your stat list seems a bit more reasonable, but it is still a little light on schools that you have a decent chance of being admitted to. UW, CMU, UNC, and Penn State are going to be tough to crack; you should probably include a higher proportion of programs similar to Colorado State.
  13. I would apply this year. I don't think that a couple of co-authored papers (which I assume means you aren't the primary author) are going to substantially change how people view your profile. You have strong math prep from an elite undergraduate institution; I would expect someone with your background to be able to make some kind of contribution on a statistical paper, so the fact that you have doesn't convey much beyond what is already in your application. As you note, a minor weakness of your application is your math grades, but grades are mainly a predictor of whether or not you can handle the coursework, and speak to a different dimension of your profile than research potential. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the lower verbal score; it's adequate, and unless you think you can score a 166+ I don't think retaking the GRE is a good use of your time.
  14. GRE question

    I would probably submit the one with the (much) higher verbal score, since the Q scores only differ by 2 percentile points.
  15. Profile Evaluation, Statistics PhD/MS

    I have a hunch that you're the kind of applicant that programs may want to "take a gamble" on despite your relatively light formal math background. Things working most strongly in your favor include strong performance at an elite undergraduate institution and extremely impressive GRE scores. Also, through your physics courses you've likely been exposed to many more mathematical concepts and techniques than is suggested by your relatively short list of "named" math courses. I don't think your list of PhD programs is at all unreasonable; I wouldn't be surprised if you got into a couple of pretty highly-ranked programs.