cyberwulf

I thought this post was going to be a lot more interesting, i.e., you would be trying to get into a graduate program without a formal Bachelors degree! Though it's hard to judge much from top-line numbers, it sounds like you'd at least be "in the discussion" at some solid PhD programs, and would have no trouble being admitted to most Masters programs. You can PM me if you want to provide more details and get a more "personalized" response.

Mention it if you want; it's unlikely to make or break your application.

For an MS in biostat, you're a slam dunk basically everywhere. Don't bother taking the Math GRE. You know you'd be competitive for some top 10 PhD programs, right? As an aside, there is a pretty big prestige gap between UW and UCLA in biostat; the former is one of the top (if not *the* top) departments in the field. The latter is good, but likely ranked outside the top 10.

Sorry for being a bit prickly, but the idea that someone with one or two courses under their belt is qualified to teach statistics is at the heart of what is wrong with the way that statistics is taught at many institutions. Mathematicians would (rightly) think that it was ludicrous for someone who had taken (say) a semester of introductory graduate-level real analysis to teach it at the university level, and yet many see no problem with promoting that exact logic when it comes to statistics. Of course, this is an issue far above your (and my) pay grade, and if you're looking for something that will increase your appeal to employers then a sprinkling of courses in statistics may do the trick, even if I'd prefer it didn't.

You're certainly not wasting your time applying to the three schools you listed. Depending on how "mediocre" your public school is, and how good your recommendations are, you might consider throwing an application at one of the top three places (Harvard, Washington, Hopkins). Of course, if you're interested in Bayesian stuff, Washington and Hopkins aren't really great fits for you.

How is a single theoretical stats course going to improve your marketability?

Where did you get the idea that most applicants have one or more published papers before they apply? I can count on one hand the number of applicants I've seen that have a publication in what I'd consider a "serious" academic stat/biostat journal. Your level of mathematical preparation will clearly be the strength of your application; so, your degree of success will probably depend heavily on your letters of recommendation. Get good ones, and you should be competitive for admission at top 10 departments.

Your 91 TOEFL is a problem. Many schools require a minimum of 100. Honestly, I think that the schools you listed are probably out of reach; places like Iowa State, Texas A&M, etc. might be a better bet for you.

SAS is nothing like C. It's a very high-level language which allows you to perform data manipulations and analyses with a small number of relatively simple commands.

A GRE Q of 156 is going to be a problem for any decent Biostatistics PhD program.

What you're describing is what we refer to in statistics as imputation. Work on imputation and related missing data methods ranges from the fairly theoretical (more often done in statistics departments) to the more applied (more often done in biostatistics departments). A good starting point would be a book by two 'giants' in the field, Little & Rubin's Statistical Analysis with Missing Data

A lot of people coming into stats programs (particularly the top ones) are pretty "math-y" and may not have a ton of stats background. For admissions purposes, grad schools need to distinguish between a group of fairly talented students, and performance in "hard" math classes like real analysis, measure theory, etc. provides one potential separator. Stat classes are less helpful for us because: a] curricula can vary widely across institutions, and b] they tend to be "easier", so that a larger proportion of the applicant pool gets high grades.

One potential drawback of being way during the summer of your junior year is that those months are usually prime time for getting involved with a research experience that will result in a strong letter of recommendation. To crack the top programs, you need more than just stellar grades (particularly if you're at a "mediocre" undergrad), and glowing letters can help you a lot. Perhaps you've already got some great ones lined up from your internship etc., in which case, enjoy the travel!

This is exactly what I would have said before this year's cycle. But this year there were some really exceptional students with records quite comparable to the OP's who got shut out of the top 3 programs. One of the main drivers of this phenomenon is that over the past couple of years Washington has cut in half the number of students they admit; this year, they only took about 20.

I saw/heard about some pretty crazy results this year, so I'm not going to say you're a lock for a top biostat department, but if you apply to the top 6-8 places, I can't imagine that you wouldn't get into at least a couple.

Mostly, it's because this information is a pain to compile and keep updated every year. Application numbers and admit rates are usually tracked centrally and easily summarized, but standardized test scores and GPAs are often "trapped" within web-based application systems, with no easy way to pull summary data.

You should be taking "classic" linear algebra. I would echo what others have said on here re: the numerical version, i.e., that it can be quite useful to have, but "classic" gives you the foundation for a much of graduate-level mathematical statistics.

With the grades you quote, the obvious concern from an admissions committee perspective is that you're hitting your "math ceiling" at undergraduate-level linear algebra, which would obviously be a big problem if true since you will need to handle more advanced math than that to succeed in any reputable biostat grad program. I would try to find a real analysis course to take this summer; getting an A in that class would go a long way towards telling the alternate story that the C+ was an anomaly rather than an accurate reflection of your mathematical abilities.

With a 3.45 from Stanford, you should be competitive for admission at basically every Masters program in the country. Funding is another story, however; most MS programs don't offer it.

Waitlists are kind of like snowflakes; every one is different. I think it would be entirely reasonable to follow up with a faculty member at the school you're interested in to express your continued interest in the program. If the school uses the waitlist as a holding tank for the many people they just aren't quite ready to reject, then your email will probably have no effect; on the other hand, if the school has a relatively short waitlist of people they are seriously considering admitting, then taking this initiative could help bump you up a bit.

If you want to do causal, you should look seriously at Penn. Dylan Small (mid-career) and Paul Rosenbaum (more senior) are both a big deal in that area.

Without publications, you're going to have trouble landing a TT position right out of grad school in the current job market. You should probably be thinking postdoc, so in addition to getting your papers out you should start trying to expand your professional network by talking to people at conferences, meeting with visiting seminar speakers, etc. It's also important to get your advisor on board; you need to be explicit that you want to pursue a tenure-track position, and ask how they can help you achieve that goal.

As I've stated before, the SOP usually doesn't carry much weight so I think it's unlikely the main reason for your (thus far) disappointing result. I wouldn't bother contacting the department, as you're in a bit of a fix regardless of how they view SOPs: If they don't give them much weight, then your plea will fall on deaf ears, and if they do consider them to be important, trying to "broaden" your SOP post-hoc sends the wrong message (i.e., "I'll write whatever you want to hear").

This is great! One could create a really awesome Shiny app out of this...

Since most programs do not fund their Masters students, there is strong motivation to get as many people as possible to enroll in the program to maximize revenue. Hence, a lot of MS programs will happily admit anyone they think can complete the program successfully. Typically, you aren't really competing with the PhD applicants directly; you just need to be "above the bar".