Biostat_Assistant_Prof

1) Apply to all the top places... For Biostats, send apps to Harvard, Hopkins, and Washington, and I'll be surprised if you don't get into one of them. I think you could even bank on getting into Michigan, UNC or Minnesota. Safetys for you would be places like Berkeley, Brown, Columbia, or Emory 2) I don't think you need a research year. Most students don't have relevant statistics research before applying anyway. You're already a good candidate for PhD programs, so go ahead and apply directly to them. 3) Probably not

The bigger departments have faculty in many diverse areas, not just one single thing. From what I've seen, smaller departments are the ones that seem to be more "specialized." At Hopkins the two primary areas that come to mind are neuroimaging and longitudinal data, but that's based off of what I know about a few specific faculty members there. Harvard makes me think of everything- longitudinal, Bayesian, environmental, genetics, etc. Michigan I think of genetics and clinical trials, and a touch of Bayesian.... But really, in any specific area of research, I think you'll find the "all-stars" of that field are spread out. Seriously, it can get so specific that you will know off the top of your head the top 20-30 people in the world doing the most influential research in your area. For example, in my area of interest, when I think of where researchers are spread out, I think of a few people dispersed across 10 or so different places. Ironically, the institutions with the most faculty working in my area of interest are not one of Harvard, Hopkins, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, or UNC. Actually, of those top 6 schools, from only 3 of them can I think of 4 total faculty that do research in the area I'm now in. In fact, the institution I associate most heavily with my area doesn't even fall into the "top 10" ... actually, I've rarely ever seen it mentioned on here.

Similar application profile to what I had, however, my GRE and GPA were a little higher. I did get into PhD programs and some highly ranked MS programs. With that said, unless the admissions process is far less competitive than it was two years ago, I'll be blunt, you're not getting into Harvard or Hopkins and I'd advise not throwing away the $150-$200 in application fees to apply to those two places. Your shot at a funded PhD at the places in the top 8-10 is less than 50%. Admissions are getting increasingly competitive each successive year, and being a current grad student knowing what I know about applicant acceptances in recent years, it's just not likely. However, outside the top 10 is a possibility for you. I'd throw at least 5 apps at places outside the top 10 if I were in your shoes with my knowledge. In doing this, my BEST advice for you is to take into careful consideration who you would like to work with at these schools and see if they have availability to mentor students in the coming years. Cyberwulf and Biostatsprof have been here for years giving good advice, and I used their advice when I was applying a few years back (I've changed my display name since then), and they will probably back me up with what I'm about to say -- your advisor/mentor is the most important part of your individual grad school experience. Top programs are at the top because they have a large number of faculty doing high quality, high impact work in various and diverse areas of research. At the top schools, your chances of working under a good, highly regarded mentor is greater than at lower ranked (and typically smaller) departments. This in turn leads to better publications, networking experience, and dissertation work, which will lead to more promising possibilities of a career in academia. There isn't much you can do at this point to get in at Hopkins or Washington or Harvard, but departments outside the top 10 do have well regarded faculty to choose from, there are just fewer. You're looking at maybe 1 or 2 high quality faculty members at these schools that are on the same level of many of the faculty at the top schools. It's tough without having experienced different areas of biostatistical research yet, but if you have an idea of the area your interested in, and find schools with a well regarded faculty member doing research in that area, then that would be extremely beneficial in helping you choose among the lower ranked programs. Overall, you have a realistic shot at PhD programs, but you won't be at at top program. I don't share too much about where I'm at, but I will say I'm not in one of the top 5 departments... But I have seen first-hand that you can get an academic position at a well-regarded (i.e. top 10 department) coming from a lesser ranked school, and am personally friends with a people that have. With the right adviser, even at a lower ranked school, you can make connections to some of the top researchers in the field, and more specifically, researchers from your areas of interest (and I know this because I've been fortunate enough to do it). The opportunities may come easier for the Harvard students, but if you work hard enough, find the right opportunities and take advantage of them when they come, you can make it to the same places. That's about all I got. I'm not going to list where I go or name drop the people I've met and have made connections with publicly, but I'll be happy to provide more info in a message if you PM me.

That's entirely relative to your application profile.

If you pull off the A in Real Analysis and send the updated transcript, then I bet you get into over half of the places you apply if you're applying for a Masters, but you'll most likely be funding yourself. My only suggestion would be to consider Michigan Biostats over Michigan Stats... However, if you're open venturing off the West coast, I'd also consider Minnesota Biostats and UNC Biostats. (disclaimer: I'm biased towards biostats)

I'm a second year biostats PhD student, that had a similar background. I had a big turn around, in that, my GPA my freshman year was 2.9 and I had raised it to over a 3.6 overall by the time I graduated (last 80 hours or so of courses, I had a GPA of 3.85ish). I was a biology major and on the lighter side for a math background too, having had a few stats classes, programming class, and calculus through multivariate (but no real analysis). I made A's in my calculus, linear algebra, stats, and programming classes. My GRE scores were similar too. My quant (which I honestly can't even remember the exact score of) was either 162 or 163 and my verbal was right around 158-160.... With that said, your quant score shouldn't hinder you too much. Really anything over 160 is pretty solid, but given your background, if you could pull out a 164+ on a re-take, it could be beneficial Cyberwulf has been giving great advice on here for years, literally, and in my experience it's been pretty accurate. With all that said, you could probably land in a decent (ranks 3-10) MS Biostat program, but it's extremely unlikely you'll have any funding. I'd say the "best" school you have a MS shot at would be Michigan, which accepts a large number of students, but that's far from a sure thing. PhD is trickier, a spot in the top 10 is a long shot. Maybe throw apps at 1 or 2 top 10's, but I wouldn't waste any more money than that. I'd skip sending PhD apps to Harvard, Hopkins, U Washington, Minnesota, or Michigan... to be brutally honest, you'll be wasting money. Schools outside the top 10 would be more likely, but I wouldn't say you're a sure thing at any of them. Just to give you an idea, here are the list of ranked schools with Biostats programs outside the top 10 (pulled from another thread): Yale, Emory, Brown, Iowa, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Boston University, Medical College of Wisconsin, UIllinois-Chicago, UTexas-Houston, Case Western, Medical College of South Carolina, SUNY Albany, Alabama, SUNY Buffalo, South Carolina, Virginia Commonwealth This is not all inclusive, there are plenty of schools with Biostat programs not even in the rankings. With the exception of Yale, Emory and Brown, the difference between them academically is probably much smaller than comparisons made between programs withing the top 10. The education you'll get at one of these schools won't necessarily be bad, but the number of "high quality" faculty is limited relative to the top 10. If you're given a choice between the lower ranked schools, the choice should be much more heavily based on specific faculty members who you'd like to be your advised by, rather than general academic perception. Your mentor/advisor is the most important aspect of your grad school experience, and a fantastic, well-respected, advisor from a smaller school is arguably better than a poor advisor at a highly ranked school..... With that said, it would be very important for you to talk the departments and faculty beforehand to make sure the person you want to work with will actually be available to take you as a student. With regards to comparing schools specifically, I won't get into that publicly for the sake of remaining unbiased/neutral... but I'll be happy to give more detailed information in a PM if you'd like.

USC as in University of Southern California or University of South Carolina?

Just as most others above have said, you really aren't expected to have narrow interests before beginning your graduate program, especially if you're coming straight out of undergrad. I had a general idea of a few areas of research that interested me based off my conceptual idea of what they were, but beyond that I had very little knowledge on what research in those areas actually entailed. After the first year, I've narrowed it down to a relatively specific area, but even that's kind of rare in my program... everything fell perfectly into place for me, and I was lucky. I know people going into their third year still trying to narrow what area they want their dissertation work to be in. If you want to get an idea, sure go ahead and read papers to get conceptual ideas of the different areas, but knowing what area you want to pursue comes after you take the classes and get involved with projects after you start, and the graduate programs know that.

I played video games, went to the pool, watched movies, read non-academic books, etc. Seriously, enjoy having a vast amount of free time, because a lot of it will quickly disappear soon enough

The other schools Cyprusprior mentioned are worth looking into as well. However, I thought Duke only had a Masters program currently...? With the exception of UC Denver, I've heard a little about all of the schools you listed. They are all smaller programs (except maybe Pitt), but they are mentioned occasionally and have been around a while. I don't really know how they rank compared to each other, but they're all probably too similar to really say any one is better than another. My biggest suggestion would be to research specific faculty members at each of those schools. One of the biggest benefits of the higher ranked schools is the large number of faculty members doing research in diverse areas that have funding to support students. I didn't fully comprehend this until I started, but your adviser is the most important part of your grad school experience. The lower ranked schools may not have as many faculty members that can support a student, limiting the type of research you'll be able to do. Of the lower ranked schools, identify the ones with the most faculty members doing research that may potentially interest you (I say potentially, because you probably don't have a good idea yet). It's not as common in our field, but I'd venture to say it wouldn't be a bad idea send a few emails to see if the specific faculty you find interest in would even be able to take students in the coming years.

I wouldn't say a Ph.D program is out of the question by any stretch of the imagination. The B's in math courses may keep you from the top programs, but you have a stronger background than many (most?) applicants applying to Ph.D programs in the country, except for maybe those that get into Hopkins and Harvard.

Good lord, has it been a year already? I swear I just posted in last years "decisions" thread, like, yesterday

I'd vote Emory.... Reasons are as follows: Emory has a fairly large department with a good number of faculty members covering all the different areas from whom you could possibly work with. The proximity to the CDC could provide some interesting opportunities no other school could offer. The stipend of $23k in Atlanta is better compared to $20k in Gainesville. Atlanta as a city has more to offer than Gainesville. Emory, at this point, has a better reputation in both Biostatistics and Public Health in general. Honestly, unless there is a particular faculty member at UF you would really like to work with, I think Emory is all around the better option.

Publication record is the biggest. Also, as a prospective grad student looking at prospective advisors, the record of where their past students have ended up may be of importance

Those rankings are old (2010).That list is by no means a comprehensive list of all Biostatistics programs in the United States; many new departments have been formed in the past 10 years. New rankings came out last week that include some of these newer established programs. With that said, calling Buffalo a "great" program may be a bit of an overstatement. Sure, the fact they were acknowledged in the rankings means it is probably a decent school, but don't think that it's any bit superior to Vanderbilt. In fact, I'd honestly give the edge to Vanderbilt, despite how new the program is (I don't know if they've even graduated a PhD yet). I'll be honest, while my school is on there, it is not at one of those top places (i.e. I'm not at Michigan, UNC, UW, Harvard or Hopkins), so I'm certainly not looking down on any program from the "we're better than you" perspective, but you'd have a hard time getting an academic position at a high ranked institution with a degree from Buffalo... If your goal is industry, it matters less, but keep in mind that goals change. Speaking for myself, I entered with the idea of going into industry, but academia is something I'm considering much more after being in the program for almost a year, so just keep that in mind. Also, adviser means more than school in my opinion. I know my program's ranking won't turn heads, and I will most likely never be considered for positions at the top 5 to 10 places, but every student the adviser I'll [most likely] be working with has ended up with academic positions at relatively well-regarded institutions.... (I say "most likely", because it's still tentative because there is still one other person I'm considering working with). Anyways, there are a couple faculty members that post here, so perhaps they can give better advice than I can.

Continue to get better at R, but start learning SAS as well. They are both useful tools in their own way and having a solid understanding of both will certainly help you.

I had an in person interview with a Biostatistics department last year. I won't say my experience is representative of all interviews, but there were no technical questions. They can see your grades on the transcript, so if you made an A in you calc classes, they'll assume you know how to do calculus... Many Biostat applicants won't have meaningful and/or relevant research, so that can't be focused on like other science disciplines. My experience was that it was more to get to know me as a person, my motivation for grad school, future goals, and so forth. I honestly spent more time than anything else having the interviewer explain their research to me (which they were happy to do so) and talking about hobbies outside of academics Good luck

Wrong type of forum

There was nothing I wanted to make a career out of more than what I'm pursuing, and a PhD was the only way to get there

Depending on your GPA, you probably may have a shot at MS Biostat programs. You say you barely scraped by in the university calc courses, so that may be cause for concern because of how important calculus is to understanding theory. As a current first year in a PhD Biostat program finishing up my first semester, I can say with certainty you will absolutely need to have a very solid understanding of derivatives, multiple integrals, series/sequences, basic linear, etc. from semester one, and it will only build on it from there. If you don't get calculus, you may have a hard time with required theory courses

Compared to if you had earned an A, yea obviously , but not so drastically to kill your chances. Overall, a 3.5 with solid math grades will get you into some decent masters programs.

It's a very new and unknown program. If you're interested in a career in academia, you should probably look elsewhere, but if industry is what you're interested in, then it's probably ok

Because your question is vague and you provide no context.

Everything is going well and I'm enjoying it so far... The transition to my new city wasn't too tough. I've learned my way around pretty quickly, but I'm still learning all the best spots for food. I've met 10-15 other students I've become friends with, so I've had a good bit of fun going out with them... But now that all the "welcome to grad school" social meeting/orientation type things are done, things are switching into full gear with coursework and other responsibilities, so the fun and games will slow down and the work load will go up, which is nice in its own right. I'm ready to finally have a set schedule and get into a routine! My department is awesome; the other students in the department are helpful and nice, as are the faculty. My classes are engaging and interesting, so studying isn't difficult for me at all... Other than that, I have to admit I'm a little homesick, having grown up and gone to undergrad in the same area. I miss my friends and family, my dogs, and the local restaurants/parks I'm used to... I love my new city, but it doesn't yet feel like home... It's a slow process I guess.

No offense, but this isn't that type of forum.