cyberwulf

PhD admissions almost always take priority over MS admissions (except in rare cases like Michigan biostat, which doesn't admit undergrads directly to the PhD). A good rule of thumb is to expect PhD decisions in December/January, and MS decisions in February/March.

It's unlikely that anyone would even notice, let alone care.

By the way, this gap between biostat and stat results happened because an "arms race" started in biostat a few years ago when there were a relatively small number of top-notch students applying to the field. A couple of departments moved their application deadlines earlier so that they could start contacting applicants before anyone else, everyone else had no choice but to follow suit and so here we are. I don't expect the timeline to shift much in the foreseeable future, however, as there are now a lot more elite applicants to biostat hence less of a need for departments to fight over a small number of tasty morsels.

Pretty much.

Upon further reflection (and perusing the LAC rankings), I'd like to modify my rule #1 to include top 100-150 liberal arts colleges.

Well, having your higher grades be in math courses in certainly better than the alternative! Depending on the school you attended and what your letters look like (as well as your actual grades in those math courses), you *could* be competitive for some top 5 programs, but if the details don't work in your favor then you might have a tough time cracking the top 10.

I'll just put this out there, as a rule of thumb. Any student with: 1) A 3.8+ GPA from a good school (say top 100 national university or top 50 liberal arts college). 2) A 160+ GRE quant score. 3) The mathematical prerequisites. is going to get into basically every biostat Masters program in the country.

A few years ago, this profile would have made you a lock for all but perhaps the top 2-3 programs, but the competition has become much, much stronger recently. You're still in good shape, and it's certainly worthwhile applying to top 5 programs, but I would consider programs ranked from ~5-10 as where you'll want to target most of your applications, with a couple higher and a couple lower than that range.

We know that Chinese transcripts rarely list Real Analysis as such on the transcript, and that the course translated as "Advanced Calculus" usually covers this material. It wouldn't hurt to clarify this somewhere, but I doubt it will be an issue.

I think this advice is spot on.

OP, if you're interested in Bayesian biostatistics/bioniformatics, why are you only looking at stat departments and not biostat ones?

Your GPA is fairly low, so it will be tough for you to get into places like Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Your other options are certainly worth a shot, though by no means a sure thing. By the way, I would consider UPenn to be a much bigger reach than Vanderbilt; indeed, Vanderbilt might be one of your better bets.

I would take Stat Inference II. You'll probably have to take some version of it again in grad school, but it will certainly help to be more familiar with the concepts.

I wouldn't waste time taking differential equations, which is much more of an applied math thing (the vast majority of biostatisticians never touch DEs). If you can replace DiffEq by real analysis, that would help you a lot more (assuming you're looking to enter a PhD program; if only a Masters, then you don't need RA). You should also consider replacing intro stats by a course in probability or mathematical statistics.

Wow, that is a broad range of schools. I don't think you have much chance of getting in at: Wisconsin, NC State, Michigan, Emory, or Berkeley. Vanderbilt might be a stretch, but it's a newer program so it's probably worth a shot. I don't know as much about DrPH programs, but I suspect you're also going to have a tough time cracking the program at Harvard. Frankly, given your limited math background, I think you'll have to drop pretty far down the rankings to get into a PhD program. Have you considered doing an MS in biostatistics first? You might be able to get into a decent program and build your profile from there.

To the OP, with your profile it's not a waste of time to apply to good programs (though I should point out that, for biostat, Duke isn't anywhere near JHU and UW in terms of prestige). Don't worry about your GRE scores, they're fine.

I doubt it will matter what you answer on the form, since RA/TA funding is distributed without regard to financial need.

Sure, it wouldn't be a waste of time to apply to a lot of good departments; it's just that most people choose 5-10 places to apply which would preclude them from applying to all the top places. But if money/time aren't a barrier, by all means go ahead.

It's only dishonest if you enroll with no intention of sticking around. It sounds like that's not the case for the OP.

Yes, we see a lot of foreign transcripts in the admissions process. Of course, the vast majority are from China and India, but there are usually a handful from Canada, South America, Australia, etc. When I say that the translation of your grades will be "difficult", I don't mean that adcoms will have no idea whether you're a terrible or great student, but rather that it may be hard (or harder than for an American student) to figure out where you belong among the applicants who are "in the discussion". If you are at a well-regarded Australian university, that will work in your favor. It's probably not a waste of time to apply to a handful of top 10 biostat departments. I think that Harvard, Hopkins, and Washington are likely out of reach, but you could (depending on the details of your application; by the way, why are you reporting a GPA excluding your first two years? Those matter as well) be competitive for schools in the 5-15 range. Again, though, it's really hard to assess your chances without knowing the nitty-gritty details; with really strong letters from a well-known Australian university, you could be in great shape for admission to some highly-ranked departments. But with a somewhat weaker record, you might find it tough to score a spot at the places on your list.

Your GRE quant score isn't a huge problem; with a Masters in Math/Stats, nobody's going to doubt your ability to do basic math. I do think that the "translation" of your grades to the U.S. context could be difficult, and that 3.2 during a semester in the U.S. isn't going to help your case. Has your school/department sent any recent graduates to U.S. biostat or stat programs? If so, you will definitely want your letter writers to compare your record/ability to theirs (favorably, one would hope). There's no getting around the fact that the competition among international students for spots in U.S. biostat programs is intense, though you are helped a bit by being (I assume) a native English speaker. Your list of schools is a bit top-heavy; you'll definitely want to add some lower-ranked places. The U.S. News combined stats/biostats rankings are a good starting point for this.

The applicant pool for mathematics PhD programs in the U.S. is deep and strong. According to the US News & World Report, NYU is the #1 ranked applied mathematics program in the country, which means they will get a large number of very good applicants. You will want to check out mathematicsgre.com to look at some profiles and past admissions results.

There's no need to "re-tool", per se, though you will certainly want to explain why you are leaving a PhD program after one year. If you know your letter writers well enough to discuss this with them, I would suggest that you ask them to add a sentence or two mentioning that your desire to switch doesn't reflect "flakiness" or lack of focus, and that they think you will be successful/happy in the right environment. Other than that, recycling the same letter content should be fine.

If you're interested in biostat, why are you applying to a bunch of places that don't have biostat departments (NCSU, Penn State, VaTech)? That being said, NC State is so big that there are plenty of biostat-oriented folks there. It's a little hard to "chance" you in biostat since dramatic academic turnarounds such as yours are pretty unusual. I would guess you're still reaching for the top 8-10 biostat departments; median overall GPAs at these places are usually in the 3.8+ range, so admitting a 3.2, even one who has been much better recently, could be viewed as an unnecessary gamble. You might have more success in the low teens (Florida, Pitt, Boston U, Iowa, Ohio State, etc.)

There aren't very many established biostat departments, so #20 is kinda far down the list. It's reasonable to go to Buffalo if you view it as the smoothest path to the local job market, but if you're entertaining the possibility of pursuing a PhD you're giving up a lot by going there for a Masters instead of a place in the top 5. As far as course preparation goes, you're fine. Masters programs typically require that you take a math stat sequence, for which the pre-requisites aren't much more than basic probability & stats (along with calculus and linear algebra). And, as a Masters student, you won't touch any theoretical topics that require real analysis.