cyberwulf

This is absolutely spot-on. The difference between stats and biostats departments is: - In good (eg. top 15) stat departments, there are a handful of faculty whose work would set you up nicely for a career in biostatistics. The remainder work on stuff that will set you up for a career in theoretical statistics research. - In good (eg.top 6-8) biostat departments, there are a handful of faculty whose work would set you up nicely for a career in theoretical statistics. The remainder work on stuff that will set you up for a career in biostatistical research. The bottom line is that you can *generally* find someone to do a more applied dissertation with in a good stat department, and the same holds true for theoretical work in a good biostat department. From the details you've provided, it sounds like you're considering UW-Seattle. If that's indeed the case, it seems like it would be a great choice for you, given the close connections between stat and biostat there. Between the two departments, there are something like 100 faculty, so you will definitely not lack options when it comes time to identifying an advisor and suitable dissertation topic.

As far as Biostats programs go, I think you should probably look into places such as Pittsburgh, Boston, Iowa, South Carolina, Case Western, George Washington, and Vanderbilt; these aren't top shelf places in the field but they'll likely give you a solid applied foundation. If your letters are really strong you might "reach" for programs like Emory, Columbia, and UCLA.

It is highly unlikely that schools will hold this against you in any way. It's much more likely (though far from certain) that they'll do their best to try to make things as easy as possible for you.

You might look into biostatistics, as well. Quantitative discipline w/ lots of applications, and you wouldn't have to take much more math to be competitive for top PhD programs (maybe just a mathematical statistics course, and Real Analysis if you're feeling ambitious). People in the field have an enormous variety of backgrounds. Feel free to PM me and I can give you more info if you're interested.

I would read this "... would *consider* accepting our offer of admission if admitted" and respond to the email. I think they're just trying to weed out people who have zero interest in doing an M.S.

In an ideal world with infinite time to take courses, I would agree. But a good fraction of PhD students entering without a Masters degree don't have it, and take it in their first semester of grad school. And from a purely cynical application perspective, a weak-ish grade in an undergrad Real Analysis course might worry an admissions committee more than not having taken it at all (assuming performance in the other math pre-reqs is solid). That being said, if you can fit it into your schedule and do well, a good performance in Real Analysis would certainly be a notable strength of your application.

What else can I do enhance my resume for Biostat Grad Program? Where can I find research/work opportunities that are relevant to the field of Biostats? Many schools require three semesters of calculus (including multivariable, often called Calc 3). I would suggest that you try to squeeze that into your schedule, along with an undergraduate mathematical statistics course or two (covering distribution theory, etc.) Don't worry about getting research or work opportunities in biostats. They're hard to come by, and grad schools are mainly looking at pre-reqs, grades, letters, and test scores. I'd prefer to work in industry, specifically in clinical trials. Would a MS be sufficient, or should I look to pursue a PhD? There is certainly demand in industry for MS biostatisticians working as statistical analysts and programmers. The PhD would position you to do a bit of research and take charge of the design and analysis of trials. How competitive is Grad School for Biostat programs in terms of GPA, GRE, experience, etc. (for both MS and PhD)? Somewhat competitive, but not insanely so. Some schools have mean/median GPA and GRE scores posted on their website. In general, you'll probably want a ~3.4+ GPA for admission to a solid MS program, and ~3.7+ for admission to good PhD programs. GRE quant is the only portion which really matters among the three; you'll want to aim for 155+ for MS, closer to 160+ for PhD programs.

UW Stats is clearly the stronger department. Were you offered funding at both/one/neither? That should play an important part in your decision process; UW is good, but probably not good enough to be worth paying 20k+/year for...

If applied stats for the biosciences is of interest to you, UMN has the advantage of having a highly-ranked Biostats department in addition to Stats.

Is that for 9 months, or 12? If for 9, then you can add another $5K or so over the summer (either from RA/TA duties or a suitable internship). Even if it's for 12, that amount isn't so low as to be crippling.

Profs get a *lot* of emails on a daily basis. Particularly if they've got other things (eg. grant deadlines) on their minds, a single email can slip out of sight and mind pretty quickly. I would suggest you send a quick follow-up email to the POI, so that if they have forgotten it will jog their memory. If there's still no response, as others suggested you might consider emailing a relevant administrator.

Agree with ANDS! here. The Agreement says that you're allowed to "de-commit" at any time before April 15th. It's not something I would generally recommend, but if an institution isn't playing by the rules it's unlikely that others which do care about such things would hold a late withdrawal against you.

Just tell them (if they ask; some profs are just curious, others want to know who they're up against). If the school is good (in comparison to the others you're looking at), why would they "give up" on you so quickly if they feel they can successfully compete for you? And if the school is bad (and you have offers from better places), you're probably a "big fish" for them and they'll be reluctant to cut loose such a promising student.

They'll try to get *most* acceptances out before the visit date, I'm sure, but there are generally a few folks "in reserve" who may get the nod quite late depending on the number of people who take up their offers.

Yes, you're right. But it's still a pretty crummy thing to do, given the agreement. I wonder how many schools are simply ignorant of the agreement, and have never been called on it?

"Slam-dunk" admits and clear rejects generally go out first. Everybody else goes into a "wait" pile of some kind. The size of this pile and how it is handled depends on the institution. Some will leave everybody in the pile until way late, others will create an official "waitlist" relatively early and reject everyone else in the pile.

Statistics departments generally want to teach you most statistics themselves; it will probably help to have done some math stat at the level of Casella & Berger, but beyond that I wouldn't worry about taking a bunch of other stat courses before you apply.

How is this wording 'vague'? "Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution."

Uh, this letter would seem to violate the Council of Graduate Schools "Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows,Trainees and Assistants", which says that you can't force anyone into accepting/declining financial aid prior to April 15. If the letter is asking you to do this, and the school you're applying to is a signatory of the resolution, I would consider reporting this unethical behavior to a senior administrator at the offending university (or at least asking a faculty member at your current institution to do it). But it sounds like they just might be asking you to get in touch to confirm you received their offer, and they aren't actually asking for a final decision yet. In which case, just acknowledge receipt and tell them you'll make up your mind by April 15.

Apply to PhD programs directly. Your profile is extremely strong, and it doesn't seem like language is an issue (which many adcoms worry about with students from Asia). You should aim high; the top stat departments (Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, Chicago, etc.) will certainly give you a look, and I would expect that a fair number will admit you. I wouldn't bother applying anywhere ranked lower than about 15-20, and even that might be conservative.

It sounds like you're well suited to biostatistics. Virtually all programs in the discipline require three semesters of Calculus (up to multivariable) and one semester of Linear Algebra; some additionally require an undergraduate mathematical statistics course, and/or a semester of real analysis. If you do solidly in the pre-reqs, and your undergrad is from a decent institution, you'll be in the discussion for admission to most biostat PhD programs. You don't need a Masters in math/stats, and research experience isn't essential. Biostat isn't terribly limiting as a discipline; graduates go on jobs as diverse as faculty in theoretical statistics departments to working as applied research statisticians in the private sector.

You don't necessarily need to restrict yourself to Feb. 1 deadlines. A lot of schools with earlier deadlines will still consider applications submitted in the next couple of weeks; you should be able to call whoever's handling admissions to find out if this is the case.

If you're applying to a top place, it won't be totally overlooked, but if you do well in your other math courses this should overcome the sub-optimal performance in Cal 1.

These are really two quite different fields. Wiki says: [biomathematics] aims at the mathematical representation, treatment and modeling of biological processes, using a variety of applied mathematical techniques and tools. The science of biostatistics encompasses the design of biological experiments, especially in medicine and agriculture; the collection, summarization, and analysis of data from those experiments; and the interpretation of, and inference from, the results. So, a biomathematician might be interested in deriving a set of differential equations describing how a particular protein transports ions across a cell membrane, while a biostatistician would develop and apply statistical techniques for establishing whether higher concentrations of that protein in (say) blood are associated with a disease. Job prospects for biostat grads are good: they are employable in private industry (often pharmaceutical or medical device companies) or in the public sector (FDA, CDC, universities). Biostatisticians are involved with most post-Phase I clinical trials (and increasingly pre-clinical studies as well!), so there's a pretty big demand. I don't know as much about biomath, but I get the impression that it's more of a "niche" area, where certain companies and research institutions have small groups working on the modeling of biological processes. Would be interested to hear from someone more familiar with the field.

Meh, none of these are likely to be helpful in your usual graduate-level statistics courses. The reason for taking AC&C or OM would be to learn a bit more about computational techniques and theory, which can be useful background for a stats grad student. The reason for taking NT or IT would be to get exposure to more advanced mathematical ideas, which is never a bad thing. My advice: take what seems interesting and is likely to be well taught!