cyberwulf

In my ~10 years doing admissions, I've never seen a student try to negotiate a higher stipend. So, it's not commonplace, and if you haven't thought about doing it, you're not missing out. Sometimes, if a student is really on the fence, we'll try to come up with additional money, but this almost always comes in the form of additional (lump sum) fellowship awards. Base salaries (i.e., stipend amounts) are often dictated by university regulations, and so are difficult (sometimes impossible) to change. Also, from an accounting perspective, it's much easier to budget an up-front fellowship payment than an increased salary over an indeterminate (4-6 year) time period. Honestly, a student negotiating a stipend would rub me the wrong way. We are trying to make the most attractive offer we possibly can while juggling concerns about equity and fairness. Further, Ph.D. programs generally lose money so it's not like we're holding back on stipend amounts to boost profits. If you feel that the stipend offered by a program isn't livable, then you probably shouldn't go to that program. If it's just about trying squeeze more money out of a program, it isn't worth it.

As in, they had people visiting in previous years who didn't show up to events during the recruiting visit? That's pretty crazy.

This is the first time I've heard of UW doing in-person interviews during visit days. Could be a strategy to increase their waitlist yield: if you admit & invite 20 to visit and waitlist 10 more (no visit), your yield on those last 10 is likely to be lower than if you invite 30 to visit then admit 20 and waitlist 10.

If you don't have anything particularly notable to write, and it's optional, it's probably not worth your time to draft one.

@bayessays, usually your advice is spot on, but here I strongly disagree. Academics love a "story", and for the most part are very willing to be open-minded about those who have taken a nontraditional path. @anon231, the fact that you were able to overcome obstacles to reach this point speaks to your ability and perseverance, both of which are vital for success in a graduate program. I would recommend that you be as open as you feel comfortable being in your personal statement. Consider: would you really be happy in a program that would have rejected you if they knew you had a GED or struggled with addiction?

I wouldn't be worried about the 164Q score; that's not going to kill you. The fact that your grades were lower in "tougher" math classes is the bigger concern. Your application is a pretty standard one. You've got more math than most applicants to top biostat programs, but your grades are on the low end of the competitive range. If your letters are really strong, you could have some excellent results, but if they are just "good" then you might slip down the rankings a little.

You should probably expand your list of targets to include more schools in the 10-20 ranking range: Pitt, Iowa, UCLA, etc. Not because you definitely won't get into a higher-ranked program, but just to be safe(r).

I think you should add some higher-ranked schools to your list. It's hard to do much better than you did, so if your letters are really strong then you might be an intriguing candidate for some pretty good places.

Your results might be a little more variable than a "standard-age" applicant with a similar record, but that variance won't necessarily only work against you (i.e., I could easily see you getting into some of the very best programs). Being able to excel in college at such a young age is incredibly impressive, and a strong marker of intellectual firepower. Many top researchers were "young" passing through various academic milestones. In biostatistics, for example, rock star Tianxi Cai at Harvard graduated from college at 17 and got her PhD at 21. Bottom line: I think your young age is far more likely to be viewed as an asset (indicating tremendous potential upside) than a liability.

Since very few have an established research track record before starting a PhD program in statistics/biostatistics, admissions committees in these disciplines are basically trying to find the smartest and most talented people they can. The reality is that prior research experience and a well-written SOP aren't a strong marker of intellectual ability (at least within the pool of people being considered for PhD admission at good programs). On the other hand, excelling at a bunch of challenging math courses taken with a strong peer group does provide some indication that an applicant has abilities that exceed most in that group, making them a good bet for PhD program success. Recommendation letters can also help make this point; the most helpful variety of these from an admissions perspective say something like "I think that Student X is as good or better than Student Y, who recently received his Ph.D. from Prestigious U, and is taking a faculty position at Top University." Another reason that research experience is downweighted: there's a persistent myth that a large proportion of students applying to PhD programs with good grades are just "school smart" and won't have the creativity and motivation necessary to do dissertation research. In my experience, this profile is rare; for the most part, "school smart" students are also "research smart". Indeed, it's far more common to see students who appear "research smart" based on previous research experiences to struggle with the technical rigor required in a good PhD program.

I think your list is still a little bottom-heavy. You'll likely get into your bottom 7-8 places; do you really need that many safety options? I would cut a few schools in the 30-50 range and add a handful more top 15's.

Yes, it's really not the case in (Bio)statistics. It's fine to name drop a few faculty in your statement. Or not. It just isn't going to have an appreciable effect on your results.

Usually, December 1st is the deadline for your application being e-submitted. It's OK if some materials arrive after, but obviously you want them to show up as early as possible.

Outside of NC State and possibly Penn State, the stat places you list don't have a meaningful profile in the biostatistics world. Even CMU, a great stat program, doesn't really have a meaningful biostatistics footprint. Assuming that you can find advisors doing similar things, the biggest difference you'll see as a grad student between a stat and biostat department relates to assistantships. In a stat department, these will mostly be TAships for "Stat 100" type courses. In a biostat department, these are more likely to RAships on collaborative projects where you do data cleaning, analysis, etc. I'll point out one more thing. You likely won't identify an advisor until your second or third year, and your research interests are likely to evolve. Stat and biostat departments provide very different "evolutionary spaces" for research interests.

If you're actually interested in biostat programs, your list is odd. You've got Harvard, then two programs in the 8-12 range. With your profile, I think you have a decent chance of getting into a couple of top 8-10 biostat programs, so I would suggest that you add some of those programs (Washington, UNC, Michigan, Minnesota, Berkeley, etc.) to your list.

A couple of thoughts: 1) I know that some top LACs are known for grade deflation, so if you went to one of those then your GPA may not be a weakness. 2) You noted that you were a POC. If you are from a group that is traditionally underrepresented in higher education, there may be funding sources available to support your studies that are not accessible to many other students. In addition, many biostat programs view recruiting a diverse student body as a high priority. Hence, your results might be better than what might be expected purely based on your "top-line" numbers.

You're applying to Masters programs. You have the math pre-reqs, with excellent grades. Your GRE scores are very good. You'll probably get in everywhere.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you got in everywhere you applied. So no, your list isn't too top-heavy.

Only a tiny proportion of applicants can speak credibly about "real" research interests (i.e., potential dissertation topics) that would resonate with faculty. Most with previous "research experience" have only applied existing methods; very few have developed anything novel. Heck, most PhD students can't really articulate a dissertation-worthy research program until they're into their second (often third) year of the program. Short answer: Write what you know, and don't try to overreach.

Yeah, you'll likely get into most, if not all, of those places. In fact, if you were applying for a PhD, you'd have a decent shot at most of the ones you listed.

Seriously, though, there are many excellent faculty at the top Canadian programs. The reason they produce comparatively few US faculty is that there are few American students in these programs, and Canadians and other international students mostly stay north of the border upon graduation.

“Old”? Bah, humbug.

If you're interested in neuroimaging, Hopkins should be on your list.

I think you're selling your school short. Sure, CUNY Hunter's not an Ivy, but there are only a handful of Ivy grads going into biostat each year, the vast majority of whom are looking at Ph.D. programs. Based on SAT ranges, it looks like CUNYH is roughly comparable to mid-tier flagship state schools (think Iowa, South Carolina, etc.), which is perfectly respectable. Biostat has plenty of success stories who didn't go to elite undergraduate institutions. This guy went to Harvard from U of Iowa. She did her undergrad at IUPUI. The list goes on.

It would be helpful to get a letter from someone in your former Applied Math essentially saying that you left the program in good standing (i.e., you didn't leave with a Masters because you failed the Ph.D. exam). And you will also want to talk in your SOP about why you're more "ready" for a Ph.D. now than you were then.