cyberwulf

I generally tell people that there's not much point in retaking classes, but in your situation it might be a reasonable option. Doing well the second time around will at least show adcoms that you have mastered the relevant material, a fact which they might doubt given your grades.

This is beyond flaky, it's lazy and unprofessional for your primary advisor to ask you to write your own letter. Indeed, it might even weaken your application if you're a strong student since you can't possibly write for yourself the type of personalized, glowing recommendation that can be a difference-maker in admissions. Ugh.

This topic has been covered at some length in the Math&Stats section - suggest you poke around there. The short answer is that, particularly for Masters admission, research experience in statistics is neither necessary nor sufficient.

+ \infty

Other than being a pain when it comes time to assemble transcripts, I don't really see transfers being a problem. Since as there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for having switched schools, it's something you might briefly explain in the personal statement.

I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that the academic reputation of a student's undergraduate institution matters in graduate admissions, AS IT SHOULD. Graduate programs want to find smart people, and a key indicator of smartness is a record of academic achievement at a good school. This is for two reasons: 1) You were deemed smart enough to be accepted into the school in the first place, and 2) You were competing for grades against a strong group of students. So, to summarize: The academic reputation of the school you attended is ONE dimension which informs graduate admissions decision-making. The influence it has varies between disciplines and departments, but it is wrong to say that it carries NO weight and also incorrect to claim it is the ONLY thing that matters.

Harvard is among the top 3 biostat departments in the US/world, and many would say it's #1. CMU doesn't even have a biostat department. This is demonstrably untrue. Also wrong. There are far more international than domestic applicants to biostat programs, and on average they have stronger math backgrounds than domestic students. Plus, for some international students English can be a concern, which raises the academic bar.

I think you're in very good shape; your list of schools is reasonable. With your strong math background, lack of statistical research experience won't be a problem. Like most people applying, you can't really write credibly about particular areas of interest in your SOP, which is fine. You might just mention in passing a couple of areas you think might be interesting to study further.

I've never heard of the 'step down' theory. If anything, it's more common to see excellent students step up the ladder in prestige when they go to grad school.

Math isn't exactly my area, but I seriously doubt you'll have much trouble getting in anywhere.

Meh, I doubt that this is true. While Northwestern (and other similar "name" schools without established discipline-specific reputations) may attract a slightly larger number of applicants, the applicant pool and entering class is likely to be relatively weak. Most applicants make their app list in a rational way (i.e. weighing departmental quality over school name), and end up choosing from among the handful of highest-ranked departments they are admitted to. NW may not fit the prototype of a 'safety' school, and may indeed be slightly harder to get into than similarly-ranked programs, but I doubt the name makes it much harder to get into than a typical department ranked in the 30-40 range.

To my mind, the bigger problem with your list is that it's 'middle-light', i.e. you don't seem to have a lot of 'solid' schools where you have a decent shot of getting in. It looks like you're West Coast focused, which does narrow the scope a bit, but if you're willing to consider Duke you might also add places like NC State, UNC, and Florida.

Though I obviously can't speak for all programs, the evidence suggests that personal statements have little impact on admissions. The principal reasons are: 1. The pool of students applying to statistics and biostatistics departments isn't particularly deep, so that a major concern of even excellent departments is whether applicants can handle the requisite mathematical coursework and exams. Unlike in pure math, it is possible to be quite successful in stat/biostat if you are only modestly creative but very good at grinding out mathematical and statistical proofs. Mathematical ability is best assessed through academic records and test scores (and to a lesser extent, letters), so it is generally quite easy to order students on this important trait. 2. Very, very few applicants have meaningful statistical research experience before starting graduate school. As a result, many students end up working on dissertations in areas entirely different than they were initially interested in... and this is totally OK! 3. Funding in U.S. stat/biostat programs is generally allocated at the department level to the best incoming students (usually in the PhD program). Applicants aren't "shopped around" to potential advisors who agree to fund them; rather, the department projects the total number of positions available and then tries to recruit up to that number of students. Once the students are on campus, they are then either assigned to a position or (ideally) have some choices available to them. Given points 2 and 3, declarations in the personal statement such as "I am very interested in studying [X] with Professors [u,V,W]" usually carry little weight. They typically translate to: "[X] is a hot topic which I know very little about but sounds interesting, and I see on your website that Professors [u,V,W] list [X] as a research area." Which, again, is JUST FINE, since that's essentially all you can credibly write. 4. Research potential *is* important, but the best source of information on this trait is letters of recommendation. In some fields, part of showing research potential is demonstrating that you have already thought of a reasonable project that will turn into a dissertation. Since (virtually) no one applying to stat/biostat has a "shovel-ready" dissertation idea, research potential is generally assessed using some combination of mathematical ability, creativity, and perhaps some exposure to lower-level research, all of which are best evaluated using other parts of the application. I don't mean to denigrate the personal statement too much, and there are a few key things to avoid (eg. aimless rambling, saying you have no intention of pursuing an academic career), but as long as the PS is merely competent it probably won't affect an application in these fields either way.

A good fraction of applicants to stat programs don't even take the math GRE. I guess it's a minor plus, but your score is totally consistent with the rest of your record so it doesn't change your profile much.

You will almost surely get into MS programs at most of these places. PhD admission chances are going to depend on your school (there is variety within the Big 10 in terms of school strength) and how much adcoms worry about those lower grades in LA and AA. I'd say you have a reasonable chance of admission to a few schools in the 4-8 range, and you're in great shape for anything below that range.

It will be extremely difficult for you to get into a PhD program of any repute with a sub-3.0 GPA. Agree with above posters that your best option is to start with a Masters and try to move up from there.

Assuming you're applying to math/stat/biostat, you have a choice to stop worrying about your personal statement because it's unlikely to have any significant impact on your chances of admission.

Ok, then I would say there's no need to add more than a couple more schools; maybe Michigan and Purdue? I don't think you'll need them though.

Every school in the top 15 can set you up well for an academic career. The well-known programs have made their reputation on producing graduates who go on to get prestigious academic appointments, not on sending students to industry (though some fraction of graduates end up going that route).

Would be easier to advise if we knew something about the strength of your undergrad school.

This depends on how "not well known" your school is, but if it's even decent you stand a pretty good shot of admission to the PhD programs in biostatistics at the three schools you listed. Your concerns about preparation appear to be unfounded; you've got far more math than the minimum pre-requisites, including real analysis and two semesters of math stat, which makes you perfectly well-prepared to tackle the first-year curriculum in a PhD program. Given your overall record, I wouldn't be too concerned about one B+, and the lack of linear algebra 2 (whatever that is) isn't going to be a problem. Personally, I would discourage you from paying for a Masters degree in statistics when you are interested in biostats and are a credible candidate for PhD admission (with funding) at excellent departments that are relatively close by. Even if you don't get admitted as a PhD student, you are a slam dunk for Masters admission. And if you do gain admission but later decide that a PhD program just isn't working out, it's usually pretty straightforward to "downgrade" and leave with a Masters degree. Some priority deadlines have passed, it's true, but I think you should still apply anyway since most applicants aren't reviewed until after the holidays.

I think Shostakovich has the rankings more or less right. I see four tiers of deparments, with the general characteristics described below: Tier 1: Harvard, Hopkins, UW - Most faculty members are renowned researchers - Good graduates are competitive for faculty positions at Tier 1-3 departments. Tier 2: Michigan, Minnesota, UNC - Some faculty members are renowned researchers - Very good/excellent graduates are competitive for faculty positions at Tier 1-3 departments. Tier 3: Berkeley, Wisconsin, Columbia, UCLA, Penn, Brown, Emory - A few faculty members are renowned researchers - Outstanding graduates are competitive for faculty positions at Tier 2-3 departments. Tier 4: Everywhere else - No/very few faculty members are renowned researchers. - Graduates unlikely to be seriously considered for faculty positions at Tier 1-3 departments, excellent students may be competitive for faculty positions at other Tier 4 departments. Of course, this is a very rough classification, and ignores the relative strengths/weaknesses of departments in various sub-areas. It also doesn't take into account the student experience at each place -- size/strength of student cohort, course/exam requirements, average time to graduation, availability of supervisors, funding package, etc. But I think it's a helpful starting point.

Depends on your career goals. If you think you would like an academic position, then it's important to go to a top 10-15 place and the best path into those places might be via an MS. Otherwise a lower-ranked PhD where you could gain direct entry might be sufficient.

I don't think it would be crazy to apply to a few schools in the 15-35 range, and a couple lower down. I thought your initial list was pretty decent.

It's not always easy, but adcoms will generally do their best to figure out the caliber of your school. The Internet and its various university rankings can usually provide a good enough approximation.