cyberwulf

Agree. Write one, but don't agonize over it.

Thing change very slowly, so programs that are good today will be good for at least the next 10 years, probably longer. As a prospective graduate student, I wouldn't worry about a department's future trajectory at all. Both Minnesota and Wisconsin have very good programs. I would rate Minnesota around #5-6 nationally and Wisconsin around #8-10.

Good luck!

The bar for international students is substantially higher than for US citizens/PRs. Places like UNC/Mich/Minn typically select international PhD applicants from a small set of elite schools in China, India, Korea, etc. Having a Masters degree from a biostat program outside the top 10 (I assume) boosts the profile a little, but it's not a huge help. Same goes for relevant research in biostat; unless the OP has a first-authored paper in a solid biostat journal (which would be extremely rare for a Masters student anywhere), it will have only a small amount of influence. I don't mean to sound too negative; I still think the OP has a decent chance to be admitted to fairly good departments like Emory. But a top 6 place could be out of reach.

Again, this going to depend on where you went to school and what math grades you had. I think it will be tough for you to gain admission at UNC, Michigan, and Minnesota, but you have a better chance at Pitt, Emory, and Brown.

Biology background is advantageous for all Biostat programs, but plays only a minor role in admissions. Even at Duke.

Hard to say; lower-ranked places can be inconsistent because their applicant pool varies more from year to year.

I think the probability that you get admitted to at least one school on your list is pretty high. The first four schools are reaches, but your chances get better from there on down.

Depending on what schools you attended, I think you will be competitive for departments ranked outside the top 10.

Just the note should be fine.

At this point, I think Duke biostat would be ranked below UNC, Michigan, Minnesota, Berkeley, Emory, Penn, Brown, Columbia, and UCLA (plus, of course, Harvard/Hopkins/UW). It seems to be more on par with places outside the top 10 like Florida, Boston, Pittsburgh, Iowa, etc. Of course the stat department is ranked much higher, which when combined with the reputation of the med school may help biostat to rise in prominence over the next 10-20 years.

I've said this many times before, but again: you shouldn't spend much time worrying about your SOP. Your grades, letters, and test scores are what's really important. The fact that you don't have biostat research experience isn't a major issue, either. As far as your GRE scores go, they're fine.

This is basically impossible to know unless you are in direct contact with people making admissions decisions at each school. And it likely changes year to year along with the composition of the admissions committee.

My initial reaction on reading that sentence was "who does this guy think he is?" It just pushes so many wrong buttons: condescending, judgmental, patriarchal, etc. Academics are generally a pretty tolerant bunch, but the one thing they generally despise is people telling them they know better. And the message you're sending is that non-coffee and whiskey drinkers like me who prefer wheat beers are, in your estimation, un-gentlemanly and un-scholarly. Baaaaaaad.

I think saying a few words about this could be quite compelling. Your decision at the time was completely understandable, but I agree that you might need to offer an explanation for why it's reasonable to think you could keep up with PhD students at a (much?) higher-ranked department. Faculty are likely to be understanding of your situation; for instance, it is commonplace in the faculty hiring process to see candidates who are clearly way too good to be at their current school, but were there for a variety of personal reasons and are finally seeking to 'upgrade' to a stronger department.

SOPs aren't very important in stats/biostats. No good applicants are being rejected because of a single typo in their statement.

Briefly: - Stats is not pure math. It's my impression that it helps to have something 'special' beyond the usual great numbers to crack the very top math departments. That isn't true at even the top stats departments, since the applicant pool isn't as nearly as deep. - If the OP's GPA equivalent really is 4.0, then that's more than excellent, it's exceptional. Furthermore, the undergraduate student body at the top university in Ireland is probably roughly similar in quality to that of a top 25-30 U.S. undergraduate institution. I can assure you that no stat department is rejecting someone graduating with a 4.0 in math from, say, Berkeley, Dartmouth, or Cornell. And to be honest, I have trouble believing that such an applicant would not stand a great chance of admission at every math department in the country. - The British system is more focused on subject-specific learning (rather than the broader-based liberal arts curriculum of the US), and so the OP will have been exposed to more math courses than many US-based applicants. This is something stats departments like to see. - *Meaningful* stats research experience is uncommon among stats applicants. Its importance is overblown. - While the bar is usually higher for international than U.S. applicants, the principal reason for that is concerns about language ability. Obviously this isn't going to be an issue for someone coming from Ireland.

If you believe this, then I don't know what to tell you, other than "you're wrong".

I think you will get into virtually all the places you applied. Some really top-end places like Stanford could be a toss-up simply because they have so few places for internationals and there might (might!) be a handful of folks with similar profiles to you. If you really want to do stat (and not probability, OR, or biostat), I wouldn't bother applying to the following: Princeton Northwestern Johns Hopkins UCLA Cornell NYU That still leaves a pretty good selection of places, including basically all the top ones plus a few more that I would say you're essentially a lock for (Michigan, CMU, UW, Columbia).

I would recommend applying to all the top places, basically the top 8-12 biostat departments listed on U.S. News, minus the ones in locations you wouldn't consider living. You might (emphasis on might) not get into the very top places with small Masters programs (eg. Harvard, Hopkins, Washington) but I think you're in good shape for places like Michigan, UNC, Minnesota, Penn, Columbia, etc. Not much point if all you want to do is a Masters; it isn't even a required course in most (all?) biostat MS programs. No. What would be the point? You'd be seeing the material for the second time, so anything worse than an 'A' is going to hurt you. If you're really unsure, you're probably best starting in the Masters. Most programs have a very smooth path to 'elevate' Masters students who would like to continue on into the PhD program. The path to 'downgrading' from a PhD to a Masters can be a lot bumpier, though some places handle it better than others. If you want to keep the PhD door open, you probably *should* take real analysis. Otherwise, the more advanced math courses you take and do well in, the better. Maybe look into abstract algebra, differential equations, numerical analysis, stochastic processes?

Just FYI, most applications include date of birth, and adcom members will generally see this (though it may be buried on one line of a 20-page application document). So whether you mentioned it or not, faculty with a sharp eye will notice it. Also, isn't CS full of young prodigies who accomplished a ton before typical grad school age? I can't imagine a discipline that would be more receptive to young applicants.

It's probably quicker to write to the administrator who handles admissions for the department.

Nope. The core skill in biostat is quantitative ability; we're still doing statistics, we just focus on working with data arising from biomedical research. Typically, a biostatistician learns about the applied problem they're dealing with "on the fly", in the same way a statistician would. Some interest in and curiosity about biological problems is important, but expertise in the applied area is not required. 1. Many programs will consider you for Masters admission if you don't make the PhD cut. So often the best strategy is to apply to the PhD and make it clear that you would also be prepared to consider a Masters position (departments vary in how they handle these situations; best to check with the places you're applying). 2. I don't have a good sense of how well you stack up against the applicants at the lower-ranked schools on your list. Perhaps someone else has some insight. 3. Most schools provide (or are willing to provide) information about the average GPA/GRE scores of the students in their program. I suggest you seek out that information, because it should provide a good guide to where you will be competitive.

I'm going to go against the grain of this thread and say that I think you should take your professor's advice to heart. Yes, it's possible that he's underestimating you, and yes, it's also possible that he's looking out for his reputation ahead of your career, but I think the more likely scenario is that he honestly feels that it would not be worth your time and money to apply to the schools he has discouraged you from. He may also feel that you would be more comfortable, maybe even more successful, in a somewhat lower ranked department. My sense is that he would like to write a positive letter for you, but it will be difficult for him to write a credible letter to a top department strongly recommending you for admission (and presumably you would need a very strong recommendation to stand a chance of admission). Depending on how big your field is, it may actually be the case that "going to bat" for you may make faculty at top departments think less of his judgment. If you heed his advice and target more 'realistic' schools, I suspect that his letter will be quite positive. Obviously, there's a lot of subtext here and the full story is unclear, so you are welcome to ignore this advice and seek another letter writer who presumably does not know you as well. But though professors' judgments about their students' abilities and potential can be wrong, they're usually more objective than students themselves.

Fair enough on not being interested, but I just wanted to point out for others reading this thread that no background or coursework in biological sciences is necessary to be a credible candidate in biostatistics.