mathgirl28

Harvard biostatistics seemed really amazing. Really awesome and brilliant professors and students. Just decided I wanted to do more computer science based statistics instead so I will be going to Berkeley for pure stats

I was admitted and I am in the process of turning it down. Good luck!

wow! you have thought quite deeply about this (as you should). I dont have any concrete suggestions (well maybe some), but more impressions: 1) I dont think you should be intimidated by Berkeley. There are no qualifying exams, and the students seem to band together to finish problem sets etc. (i.e. while you will be challenge, I do not think there is a chance of you falling behind. It seemed more like a learning together atmosphere). That challenge might be the best thing that ever happened to you (who knows) =). Also, the time in which you finish your phD (im willing to bet) will be the same at Berkeley as it is at other schools. The reason i say this is because if you're lucky, your research area/topic will be one of deep interest to you as well as one you are or become strong in. That process will be the same no matter where you go. I personally think that an atmosphere where you feel like everyone is a rockstar is a good thing because it pushes you (and if your going to academia, you need that). 2) In terms of jobs, there are other schools around California that will be doable in terms of making trips, but probably not pleasant (UCSF, UCSD, UCLA etc.). I have a friend who makes the UCLA-Bay area relationship work, so its doable. I really think you should tackle that problem as it comes. That said however, Duke would probably be a safer bet on that front since it is in New England and while he might not get something that close by (or even in the same state) there are more schools in New England to choose from. 3) It seems like your decision is more between Berkeley and Duke. It also seems like you want to go into teaching, so you ought to weigh the strength of the advisors you want to make the decision and not necessarily school reputation (although this is still very important). Start email correspondences with the professor(s) you want to work with (that is what i have been doing at least, and they have been very receptive). Further engage them about projects you think you might want to work on and even let them know how you are thinking about the decision. Ultimately, i think if you can find a professor at Berkeley who wants to work with you (and on what you want to work on) you should go for it. Its one of the strongest programs and i am willing to bet you will succeed there. If you find that person(s) at Duke, and you click with them better, go for Duke and don't look back. I think you will be fine coming out of either one. Also, I really wouldn't worry about financing at either one. I think that should be one of the last things you look at as the stipends at all places will be livable. (i.e I wouldn't pick Duke because i could be living in a better apartment...you could end up receiving a fellowship down the line (you should apply for some in your first year) and you wont be living badly even if that doesn't happen...) This is just my two cents...

It seems though it is more favorable to do a postdoc at Berkeley rather than a phD. The same outcomes hold for phD students, but its not as strong (i dont think...as in you see the same student outcomes for just graduate students for top professors at MIT and Berkeley I believe). That makes sense because very strong graduate students are more likely to get selected for postdoc positions with these three, and generally the name recognition of having them as their advisor is primarily a resume boost, as they were overall very strong anyway (and probably would have landed one of those postions)...

Mike said although he wasn't, he has not turned down a strong and eager student then set up meetings for me with people in his group. So I don't think I can count him completely out, just more of a gamble. Alan Willsky and a couple other people do non parametric bayes work at MIT but it's slightly spread out. Nevertheless you seem to be suggesting that Berkeley might have a slight edge...

I spoke to Peter while I visited Berkeley and he is not leaving. He will be visiting Australia more often. I think he still wants to keep a connection to Berkeley. Granted, there are quite a number of people from both that i could work with (more than I listed originally). I do like graphical models and nonparametric bayesian research so i think either institution could be a good fit... and that is actually more or less my problem. Both institutions really impressed me during the preview weekend, and taking out weather as a parameter, one institution didn't really top the other. I am looking to go into academia, so i am really actually trying to base this decision on advisor strength and compatibility rather than weather or superfluous things. While only i can speak to compatibility, i was hoping to get an idea of advisor strength.

I am interested in Machine Learning and have been admitted to both these programs. I know that Berkeley has MJ, but he is limiting the amount of students he is taking, so working with him might be quite a gamble. There is of course, Martin Wainwright, Peter Bartlett etc. MIT also has some pretty great people as well (Tommi Jakkola etc.). I wondering if anyone has any sort of insight about how to make this decision... A tentative more specific research area is bayesian nonparametrics... but i like high dimensional data and other topics as well. Again, any input would be great...

Hey, I got into a top 10 biostat, top 10 stat, and top 10 CS program. Its weird that i had such a diverse application process, but my interests lie somewhere in the intersection of those 3 program (machine learning-ish/ bioinformatics... but more ML). So while i am extremely happy, i have to make the choice between these, and mine will be for the most part based on the advisor i would have at each of the institutions (which has as much to do with fit as it does prestige/clout of the advisor). That at least was the advise i received so far about how to base my decision. I have heard a lot about UW-Seattle and it is quite theoretical (which is a good thing). I dont know what stat program you got into, but UW is quite tough Ive heard. That said, look at who would be a good advisor at each of the places and try to let that influence your decision

I had a friend who graduated from Harvard's Biostatistics program and got more statistics faculty offers than biostatistics programs upon finishing. His research however was more theoretical than most in his cohort however (it happened to his friend as well though). In the end he accepted a biostatistics faculty position at Harvard which is where he is teaching now. All this is to say i think you should select the program where you will get the best (theoretical) training and have the best advisors. Where and how you publish will ultimately decide where you will get offers rather than the name of the school you went to. Your advisor support will also help a lot. My two cents. p.s. i am currently in a similar situation and deciding between two great programs, so congrats!

yes, but phD's i hear get paid more... you could always do the MS first and then go back for the phD if you dont mind paying the money Depends on the caliber of school you are shooting for. Competitive Biostats programs (Harvard, Washington, Hopkins...) will want to see more math background. You might want to do a postback in mathematics of find someway to get mat courses under your belt. They want to see high math GPA's and good GRE's in the quantitative section (800-790). That is for top tier, lower tier will still probably want to see more mathematics background (esp more statistics courses) and a good GRE. Even still you are pushing it with the lack of mathematics classes. Is there anyway you can get more under your belt. That would be my biggest advice. If you can do more mathematics classes (3 years of calc at least), and do well, you will be well on your way to be a competitive applicant. Hope that helps!

I got into EECS area II. Although I think there was definitely more than three. I am pretty sure they told most people who applied area II... I would not worry so much yet. Good luck!!

No i found it: http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?t=w&o=&p=7 Someone posted a Yale interview. Like i said, don't know if its fake or not...

I saw someone post a yale interview for statistics on the results page (but after browsing i no longer see it). It might have been fake. I actually wanted to know about interviews for general preparation purposes. I had guessed that the stats programs i applied to didn't interview at all. I didn't apply to Yale or Duke, but other top 10 schools and i was wondering which of those interviews. Does anyone know?

Does anyone know which programs interview. I see that Yale and Duke does. Do any others?

I know it may be a little late, but i would encourage you to apply to few more safeties. The competition is going to be great this year and while you are a pretty strong candidate, given your profile there should be a few more safety schools on your list. While there is a good chance it might not happen, I would hate for you to not get into any schools and be forced to take another year off. Just my opinion (based on people with similar profiles in previous years)