cyberwulf

I suspect that there are a couple of factors at play here. First, the ratio of domestic to international students among admits will affect the summary numbers; in general, internationals will have higher GPAs and higher standardized test scores. Second, and probably more important, is the quality of the undergraduate and Masters institutions attended by those students. The top places tend to attract very good applicants from high-quality schools. Students with 3.7s from elite undergrads are generally excellent students and highly sought after by top biostat programs, but they do "drag down" overall program GPAs. What is *not* the case is that students with 3.5s and 3.6s are consistently getting into top programs ahead of students with 4.0s (from similar undergrad programs) because of other things on their application like research experience or personal statements. And of course, sample size issues enter as well; UNC admits something like 30-40 students into their PhD program each year (some unfunded), so their average admitted GPA will be more stable on a yearly basis than a program that admits 12.

Wow, if accurate that's pretty crazy.

OK, I am prepared to believe that some departments get >300 applications, particularly when you consider Masters and PhD combined. But I remain doubtful that all (or even most) of them do.

I'm not sure this is still the case; with the increasing number of biostat departments, stat departments seem to be drifting in the direction of theory rather than application, so many stat graduates will have had little experience analysing real-world data. Any source for this claim? I find those numbers hard to believe.

You won't be "offending" anyone if you apply, but I think you'll be a longshot for admission at most of the places you list. If your career goal is to work in industry, you won't be harming your future job prospects too much by considering some other schools ranked a bit lower than the top 10.

Yeah, I would re-take. From your profile, I think the biggest concern will be your quantitative ability and capacity to handle advanced mathematics ("If Calc 3 and Linear Algebra were a struggle..."). A really strong GRE Q could assuage at least some concerns.

Yes, I think there is something to be said for making the application process more rewarding for yourself by focusing on schools that you can get excited about. What I counsel against is excluding high-ranking schools from consideration in favor of much lower-ranking ones because of perceived fit. If you apply to NC State and Berkeley instead of Chicago and Penn because you're really interested in Statistical Genetics, fine. But I wouldn't drop schools like Chicago and Penn for places outside the top 15, even if the lower ranked places are more stat gen oriented. Writing a personal statement which basically says "I want to go to your department because it's good and the faculty are smart" might seem cliched and forced, but let me assure you that it's more or less how most statements read. A somewhat generic statement which highlights some the strengths of a department isn't going to have much of an impact on your application either way.

You could add Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and Chicago to cover all the top places, but the list you have is pretty solid. Duke isn't really "out of the mainstream", it's just that almost everyone there does Bayesian statistics. Bayes theory and methods is an important and broad area, but it isn't the only one and the downside of a pure Bayesian department like Duke is that you are limited to that area. The upside, of course, is that such departments attract many of the top researchers in the field, and so there are many excellent faculty to work with.

I'm not familiar with that specific track, but it would make sense that admission standards would be higher than for the MS if they are essentially guaranteeing you a spot in their PhD program down the road.

Unless Columbia has a hard GREQ cutoff, I think you're in pretty good shape even for there. This is particularly true if your undergrad is from a "known" place. I can't imagine a stats program in NYC other than (possibly) Columbia that wouldn't be interested in you for an MS with your current profile.

More weight will be placed on your math and stat grades, so it sounds like you are in pretty good shape. Of course, the schools you obtained those grades from will also affect how they are viewed.

Yeah, don't bother contacting professors in your target biostat departments. You probably won't start on "real" biostatistics methods research until you have passed your qualifying exams (likely after the first year if you already have a Masters), so research fit isn't something that plays much of a role in admissions.

I am pretty confident that you will get into mots of the places you applied. Heck, I think you'd probably be admitted straight into PhD programs in Biostatistics at most of the places you list!

Calc II is typically where you learn about integration, so you can't skip directly to Calc III (partial derivatives and multiple integration) without taking it. Depending on what is covered in DiffEq, Calc III may not be a prerequisite, but II definitely will be.

Your profile is very competitive. I wouldn't worry about aiming too high; I would wager that you will at least be "in the discussion" at pretty much any school you apply to. I would suggest supplementing your current list (UW/Rice/UF) with some elite programs like Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, NC State, Duke, etc. Basically, check out the US News rankings and pick from schools in the Top 15-20 located in places you would consider living.

Recommend taking up to and including multivariable calculus. Given your interests, you might also consider a course in differential equations.

I would agree in your specific case (Michigan vs. UNC) because both schools are excellent. However, I think it's a bad idea to attend a lesser program based on receiving a higher stipend. For example, going to Yale over JHU or Washington (in biostat) for the sake of $8-9,000 per year would be shortsighted in my opinion.

UNC was certainly an elite department in the past, but I think it's been surpassed by more recent upstarts. The biggest limitation of the NRC/US News rankings is that they tend to reflect popular perception, which can lag actual quality by a decade or so. I think UNC is benefiting from this long horizon, whereas NCSU and UF don't quite get enough credit for their recent accomplishments.

Funding for Masters students is hard to get; it is unlikely there is anything you can do between now and fall semester to improve your chances of obtaining funding.

I know a couple of people there, but it is not very well known on the national level. Certainly not nearly as prestigious as the other places you list.

Brown is a notch below the places you mentioned in terms of overall department reputation, but there are several excellent faculty members there. I'd say Brown currently falls in the 10-15 range nationally, but could move up a few spots as the program matures.

IMHO: 1. NCSU 2a. UWisc 2b. UMich 3a. Florida 3b. UNC

If your school is little-known and your math grades marginal, then you might be out of luck for top-tier MS programs; but I would still include a few in your app list. See my comments on GRE scores in

Oh, and I forgot to mention UPenn, which is also a very good program (probably around #10 nationally).

Glad to know what some folks have found my advice helpful! Anyway, it sounds like you're probably going to have a tough time landing a PhD offer at a Top 6 place (generally considered to be Harvard-Hopkins-Washington-Michigan-UNC-Minnesota). But, as w.i.c.c. correctly points out, a lot depends on the rest of your profile; if your math grades are quite a bit better than your overall GPA, and you get some very solid letters, you might have an outside shot at one of the places on your list (this advice doesn't apply to CU Denver since it's not really in the yard compared to the other four). I think you're probably in a relatively good position to gain admission to a strong MS program, where a good performance will set you up well for PhD admission in a couple of years. Be warned, however, that you will almost certainly not be able to get guaranteed funding as a Masters student. If funding is a major issue, you might look into the next tier of PhD programs, which would include places like Columbia, Brown, Penn, Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, UCLA, and Boston University (I'm probably leaving a couple of places out).