Jump to content

cyberwulf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    839

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

 Content Type 

Everything posted by cyberwulf

  1. cyberwulf
    That score is probably enough to get you into a decent Masters program; given that you've taken it twice and scored about the same, it seems unlikely that you'll improve your score enough (getting to, say, a 166+) on a retake to make a difference in your chances of admissions.
  2. cyberwulf
    If you're interested in biological applications, why aren't you applying to some biostat departments? Given your list, Berkeley, UW, and Michigan biostat seem like obvious additions.
  3. cyberwulf
    For MS admission, most programs are unlikely to look at your transcript closely enough to see that your LA course was not "proof-based". For typical Masters programs, what you need is familiarity with vectors and matrices; you don't necessarily need a lot of the more advanced topics like vector spaces, projections, etc.
  4. cyberwulf
    That seems like a pretty reasonable list of schools. Have you considered retaking the GRE to improve your score?
  5. cyberwulf
    With a few exceptions, the CV doesn't play much of a role in admissions decisions. Since a CV is mostly a list of academic products (papers, presentations, etc.) and incoming students don't typically have many (any?) of those when starting graduate school, most applicant CVs end up looking about the same and hence don't provide a basis for distinguishing individuals. Admissions are mainly about gauging potential, for which transcripts, letters, and standardized test scores are more helpful.
  6. cyberwulf
    Where you fall in the applicant pool varies depending on the school you're applying to. Yes, you're probably around the median or below among the people applying to Harvard, but as you go down the rankings the pools weaken so that outside of the top handful of places you'll be above average.
  7. cyberwulf
    Harvard's a reach for you, yes, but I'm not sure I'd say the same thing about Michigan. I would suggest that you apply to more places in the 5-15 ranking range (UNC, Minnesota, Penn, Berkeley, etc.) and fewer low-ranked places (SMU, Tulane, Rutgers). While you likely won't get into all the top 10-15 programs, your profile should at least put you "in the discussion" at some of them.
  8. cyberwulf
    This shouldn't be a problem. Most programs are quite open to students from diverse backgrounds if they have the pre-requisite coursework, and it sounds like you do.
  9. cyberwulf
    You're way under applying; basically every school on your list qualifies as a "safety" given your profile. Your math prep, even if you didn't take any more math courses, would be stronger than the vast majority of applicants, even those applying to the top programs. Do you seriously not know this? How many biostat applicants do you think there are every year with a near-4.0 GPA in math from a top state school? It sounds to me like you should go talk to someone at OSU Biostat; they can get you started on a more reasonable list of target schools. If I were advising you, I'd start the list with at least one of the top tier programs (Harvard, Washington, Johns Hopkins) and then apply to most in the next couple of tiers (UNC, Minnesota, Michigan, Berkeley, Penn, UCLA, etc.) Lastly, if (more like when) you get a PhD offer, it will come with guaranteed funding for the duration of your program; with your record, you should never go to a PhD program unfunded.
  10. cyberwulf
    Outside of the most elite programs, Masters admission is often not terribly competitive. Few programs guarantee funding, and many are happy for any student that they judge has a reasonable chance of getting through the program to come and pay tuition.
  11. cyberwulf
    Basically no impact. It is an opportunity for a program to advertise to you. The faculty involved in admissions will often not be involved at all, or only just tangentially (e.g., welcoming students, talking briefly about their research, etc.)
  12. cyberwulf
    Most departments have an open house type event in the September-November period. Typically, they are not advertised beyond "local" schools, but anyone is welcome to attend.
  13. cyberwulf
    Your overall profile is relatively strong, but your low GRE Q score (combined with the B in Calc III) may raise some concerns about your ability to get through the more rigorous math required in grad school. Hopefully you can score a lot higher (160+) on the retake, which should help you. Taking (and doing well in) a proof-based course is also a good idea. I echo the suggestion to apply to Michigan; it's a big program, so their admit rate is relatively high considering their ranking, and they're very strong in statistical genetics.
  14. cyberwulf
    Is this a joke? If not, you should be aware that this post comes across as extremely arrogant ("excellent research experience (could not be better)", "I have no doubt I will be accepted", etc.), which is not going to play well in a personal statement or at in-person interviews. As far as target schools go, you need to revise your expectations - a lot. A 3.5 GPA (especially driven by low math grades) puts you pretty far behind the typical admit at most, if not all, of the schools on your list. You need something exceptional to overcome that deficit, and frankly I don't see anything in your record (beyond your claim that people will be blinded by your genius if they meet you in person) that fits the bill. Not to be overly blunt, but Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, Hopkins, and UW are total pipe dreams. UNC and Michigan are pretty big reaches. You might have a better shot at UCLA and Emory, but I wouldn't bet on you being admitted there either.
  15. cyberwulf
    Yes, I think those would be pretty safe bets for you.
  16. cyberwulf
    Correct. Applicants often name drop a handful of professors in their personal statement whose areas they say they might be interested in, but establishing contact isn't necessary. No, don't retake, those scores are fine.
  17. cyberwulf
    I would say that your list of biostat PhD programs isn't top-heavy enough. You should really apply to Washington and Harvard's PhD programs (and Hopkins too, if you're interested in living in Baltimore), and depending on your geographical preferences add a few more from the next couple of tiers (Michigan/Minnesota/UNC/Berkeley, Penn/Emory/Columbia/UCLA/Brown). You might not get into UW or Harvard, but it's certainly not a waste of your time to apply.
  18. cyberwulf
    If you want to do applied statistics with a focus on environmental applications, writing off biostat departments seems like a big mistake since that is where a lot of enviro-stats folks congregate (see, e.g., Roger Peng at Johns Hopkins, Amy Herring at UNC, and Francesca Dominici at Harvard). Also, that C+ in proof writing is going to be a fairly serious barrier to admission in stat departments since most decent ones require quite a lot of math. It will still be an issue at decent biostat departments, but may be less of a "deal-breaker" if the rest of your application is otherwise strong.
  19. cyberwulf
    Not any well-reputed ones...
  20. cyberwulf
    Probably. But if you can attend an in-person program, I would suggest it. I have yet to talk to a person who did an online Masters who found it a fully satisfying experience.
  21. cyberwulf
    You might get better feedback at http://mathematicsgre.com For various reasons, this board has become quite stat/biostat focused.
  22. cyberwulf
    The advice from @twilightgalaxy is right on. Only a handful of PhD programs (notably Harvard, Hopkins, Penn, and Emory) conduct interviews during the PhD admissions process, and they're not expecting you to have identified a research topic when they talk to you. As for Michigan, while they don't technically accept students directly into the PhD program, there is a "PhD track" in the Masters program (where I believe most/all students are funded) that leads seamlessly into the PhD.
  23. cyberwulf
    It sounds like you have a relatively strong profile. To your questions: 1. Chances are, nobody will know how "new" TAMU's stat major so that won't be an issue. Graduating in two years is pretty unusual, and comes with pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it is an impressive academic accomplishment, and shows that you likely have a large 'bandwidth' which is an important predictor of success in academia. The minus is that students who graduate quickly often don't get to know their professors and can have rather 'blah' letters of recommendation; fortunately, it doesn't sound like this is an issue for you. 2. Hard to say without seeing your letters and transcript, but it sounds like most departments would give your application strong consideration. I would consult with your advisor in selecting target programs. It's pretty rare for Americans to leave the U.S. for a PhD in statistics, since 1) most of the top programs are here, and 2) most international programs operate on the British model and require a Masters degree first. 3. Depends on whether this statistician at Princeton is involved in admissions decisions, and whether your advisor is willing to reach out to them to advocate on your behalf. In any case, it can only help you.
  24. cyberwulf
    Not a problem at all.
  25. cyberwulf
    I don't know whether people there actually believe that, or are just being disingenuous, but it's hard to see how you could rank Michigan ahead of Harvard, Hopkins, and Washington.
×
×
  • 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

  I accept