cyberwulf

Yeah, that doesn’t seem like a big deal.

GRE scores aren’t independent. If you assume scores are normally distributed, and you know the means and correlations (posted above), then you could work out (or simulate) the probability of someone scoring higher on all three sections than you. In your case, I would bet it gives a number higher than 0.05.

Yes that sounds fine.

The problem with letters from non-faculty is that the main purpose of letters is to put your performance and abilities in context. Since non-faculty haven't had as much interaction with students, it's harder for them to contextualize. Non-faculty know this, and so I've noticed that their letters tend to be a bit more guarded and less enthusiastic than those from faculty. So, a positive letter from a postdoc certainly won't hurt you, but it's also unlikely that a super-positive letter from a postdoc will substantially boost your application.

I think you're under-applying. You've already got enough math background (and a decent GRE Q score) to be a good candidate for Biostat MS programs at the level of UNC. Schools like Michigan, Berkeley, Minnesota, Penn, etc. should be your wheelhouse.

You should be in decent shape to get into a good chunk of the biostat MS programs on your list.

You might be asked for fall grades if you're on the borderline for admissions and the adcom would like a little more information. Otherwise, you likely won't be asked to provide them.

Yes, that's fine.

Was this person referring to Masters or (more likely) PhD admission? Two totally different stories. The handful of Masters programs which are highly selective presumably handle admissions more like typical PhD programs would, where letters play a big role. My point was that most Masters programs don't try to make this distinction; they more or less take everybody they deem "qualified". There is program-to-program variability in what constitutes "qualified", but in general Masters admissions don't involve grinding over who is good/better/best among the set of students who can plausibly succeed in the program.

They don't play much of a role at all; since Masters are mostly coursework-based, the relevant information to predict success is contained in your previous coursework grades and GRE scores.

Most places do this, since they want you to come and pay for a Masters!

I think you're a touch pessimistic. I don't think it would be a waste of money for @CarolinaSmash to apply to biostat PhD programs ranked in the 15-25 range, and perhaps even a handful in the 8-15 ballpark.

If you’re interested in applications to chronic disease and cancer, dropping all biostat programs from your list seems like a mistake. Yes, it’s a little tougher to get into a biostat program as an international student, but keep in mind that the applicant pool is also quite a bit shallower overall. I’d say you have a decent shot at getting into a top-5 biostat program with your profile.

No.

I'd echo what others have said; you might have a shot at a top school, but I wouldn't bank on getting into one of Stanford/Berkeley/Chicago/Penn or UW/Hopkins. I think your chances are better at Wisconsin, Michigan, and Columbia, but I would classify those more as reasonable targets than safeties. If I were you, I'd probably be mostly targeting programs ranked between ~10 and 30 in the combined stat/biostat US News rankings.

I wouldn't bother; it's not worth the time.

Yes. Suggest taking probability and math stat if you can fit them in, but regardless you're in pretty good shape.

For whatever reason, this forum has evolved into a very stat/biostat-centric space. You'll probably find more people with useful advice to give at http://www.mathematicsgre.com/

Outside of the most intensely mathematical stat programs, the linear algebra requirement is there to ensure that you know what vectors and matrices are and how to do basic operations with them. For example, you should be able to interpret what (X'X)^(-1)X'y means (with X a matrix and y a vector). It's nice but not essential to have seen eigenvalues, eigenvectors, and various matrix decomposition techniques.

If anything, it might (slightly) help you stand out from other applications, since a quadruple major is pretty uncommon. Good performance across a range of disciplines is a promising indicator of future productivity, particularly in a collaborative discipline like biostatistics.

Students from one of the SKY schools in Korea tend to do pretty well in terms of admissions results, particularly if they have strong GPAs and good TOEFL scores like you. The top handful of schools are always going to be hit-or-miss, but I like your chances at places like Wisconsin, UNC, NCSU, Michigan, etc. Definitely worth a shot at some higher-ranked schools as well.

I think you're in pretty good shape. Washington has been a really tough nut to crack recently, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some decent results in the next tier of schools.

The best way to get information like this is to contact whoever is in charge of the graduate program there, which appears to be ... searches Google ... Dr. Robert Platt.

No, that's fine.

From what I've heard about biostatistics PhD admissions, the admissions commitees look at (1) If you have taken high level math (Advanced Calc + Real Analysis), (2) research experience, (3) letters of rec, (4) GPA, although it seems like if your above a reasonable threshold (~3.7?) then your fine. (1) Yes, (2) A bit, (3) Yes, (4) Yes (but there is a big difference between a 3.7 and a 4.0) I understand that these are all very important aspects. However, it seems like the majority of students applying to biostatistics programs have these qualifications. What are the factors beyond these main points that allow top schools to choose between a very competitive applicant pool? My thoughts: they want students who are a good research match, Nope, not something that is considered strongly. This means that publication record can be a deciding factor. Nope, because... it is extremely difficult to publish a statistical methods paper (or any paper) as an undergrad. Bingo! This inherently gives applicants with a masters degree a great advantage. Most Masters students don't have papers, either. There also may be weight on a good personal statement, but I havent heard much emphasis on this (I obviously will make it as good as possible, but this may not be something that gets you in). This varies from program to program, but it's unlikely to be a major difference-maker. Is it worth it to get a masters degree first? Depends on what the weaknesses in your application are. If you are an excellent student but lack math background, a Masters may allay some concerns about your quantitative ability. Otherwise, it's not easy to radically change how an adcom sees you after one year of Masters coursework. What can make an undergraduate applicant stand out (besides the obvious points made in the first paragraph) There's a reason those points are "obvious"; they really are the main considerations. Applicants who stand out are the ones who are strong across all those points; good prep, stellar academic performance, and glowing letters.